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)

Download PDF
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

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?