Fetter v. Bonner, et al.,

Filing 113

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 7/20/17, ORDERING that Plaintiff's state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff may refile his claim under California Civil Code §§ 5455.2 in the appropriate state forum. As no claims remain pending before this Court, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GEORGE FETTER,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-02235-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF,
EDWARD N. BONNER; et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff George Fetter initiated this lawsuit alleging that while he was an inmate at

17

the Placer County Jail, he received inadequate medical treatment, which led to his leg

18

needing to be amputated. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 49, contains

19

various federal and state claims against Defendants County of Placer; Placer County

20

Sheriff’s Office; Placer County Sherriff Edward Bonner; and the jail medical provider,

21

California Forensics Medical Group (“CFMG”). Defendants moved for summary

22

judgment on all claims against them, ECF Nos. 92–93, resulting in the dismissal of all

23

but one of Plaintiff’s claims, ECF No. 107. That remaining claim is against CFMG under

24

California Civil Code §§ 54–55.2.

25

On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Request for Settlement Conference,

26

requesting a second settlement conference to resolve the remaining claim. ECF

27

No. 110. On June 29, 2017, the Court ordered CFMG to reply to Plaintiff’s request, ECF

28

No. 111, which it did on July 4, 2017, ECF No. 112. In that reply, CFMG stated that
1

1

“a . . . second settlement conference on the remaining . . . issues in this case would not

2

be productive.” Id. at 2. Further, CFMG requested that the Court exercise its discretion

3

to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. Id.

4

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if a federal district court has dismissed all

5

claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may, in its discretion, dismiss without

6

prejudice supplemental state law claims brought in the same action. 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1367(c)(3); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)

8

(en banc). Several factors are considered in determining whether the Court should

9

continue to exercise its jurisdiction over state law claims. These factors include

10

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in deciding whether to retain jurisdiction

11

over pendent state claims. Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309

12

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988)).

13

Although the Court is not required to dismiss the supplemental state law claims, “in the

14

usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of

15

factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

16

claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7; see also Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

17

938 F.2d 986, 993–94 (9th Cir. 1991).

18

Here, the Carnegie-Mellon factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Only a state law

19

claim remains, and the case has yet to proceed to trial. Judicial economy does not favor

20

continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Nor do the comity and fairness factors

21

weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since “[n]eedless decisions of state

22

law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the

23

parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.” United Mine

24

Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Plaintiff's state law claim is

25

therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff may

26

refile his claim under California Civil Code §§ 54–55.2 in the appropriate state forum. As

27

///

28

///
2

1

no claims remain pending before this Court, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close

2

this case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3