Slipak v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
18
ORDER REMANDING CASE to Placer County Superior Court signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/21/11. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JACOB SLIPAK,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
12
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
13
Defendants.
________________________________
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-01971-GEB-JFM
ORDER
14
15
Defendants filed a motion challenging the sufficiency of the
16
claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. However, review of the
17
First Amended Complaint reveals that the federal question, which was the
18
basis of removal of this case from state court, is no longer pled, and
19
only state claims now remain in this case. Under the circumstances, the
20
Court may sua sponte decide whether to continue exercising supplemental
21
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims.
22
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) prescribes that a district court “may
23
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state] claim” if
24
“all
25
dismissed. The “discretion [whether] to decline to exercise supplemental
26
jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one
27
of the conditions in § 1367(c), [and] is informed by the . . . values of
28
economy, convenience, fairness and comity” as delineated by the Supreme
claims
over
which
it
has
original
1
jurisdiction”
have
been
1
Court in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
2
Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en
3
banc).
4
Judicial
economy
does
not
favor
continuing
to
exercise
5
supplemental jurisdiction. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337, 338 (9th
6
Cir. 1986) (“[T]he district court, of course, has the discretion to
7
determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention
8
of jurisdiction or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without
9
prejudice.”) (citation omitted). Nor do the comity and fairness factors
10
weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless
11
decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and
12
to
13
surer-footed
14
Therefore, this action is remanded to the Superior Court of California
15
in the County of Placer, from which this case was removed.
16
Dated:
promote
justice
reading
between
of
the
parties,
applicable
law.”
by
procuring
Gibbs,
383
U.S.
December 21, 2011
17
18
19
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
for
them
at
a
726.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?