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)

Download PDF
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?