Crosby, et al v. Save Mart Supermarkets

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/17/15 GRANTING 8 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of Placer. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DARWIN CROSBY, on behalf of
himself and all others
similarly situated,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:15-CV-0321-GEB-KJN

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE COUNTY OF PLACER*

v.
SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, a
California corporation and
all other similarly situated,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff seeks remand of this case to the state court

18

from which it was removed. The basis of removal was federal

19

question subject matter jurisdiction; however, the parties caused

20

a stipulation to be filed today that eliminates that basis for

21

subject matter jurisdiction.

22

Defendant

opposes

remand

arguing

“the

existence

of

23

[asserted] related cases pending in this Court . . . heavily

24

weighs

25

fairness, and convenience.” (Opp’n 8:24-27, ECF No. 10.)

against

remand

on

the

ground

of

judicial

economy,

Under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3), a district court

26
27
*

28

The hearing on March 30, 2015 is vacated since this matter is suitable
for decision without oral argument under E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

1

“may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [state]

2

claim[s]” if “all claims over which [the district court] has

3

original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. “While discretion to

4

decline

5

presence of one of the conditions in section 1367(c)(3), it is

6

informed by the Gibbs values of economy, convenience, fairness,

7

and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001

8

(9th Cir. 1997) (referencing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383

9

U.S. 715 (1966)). “In a case in which all federal law claims are

supplemental

before

jurisdiction

trial,

the

.

.

balance

.

is

of

triggered

these

by

factors

the

10

eliminated

will

11

generally point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over

12

the remaining state law claims.” Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach &

13

Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990).

14

“Needless decisions of state law should be avoided [in

15

federal court] both as a matter of comity and to promote justice

16

between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading

17

of the applicable law.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. Therefore, the

18

Gibbs

19

jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

values

favor

declining

to

exercise

supplemental

20

Plaintiff’s remand motion is GRANTED, and this case is

21

remanded to the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF

22

PLACER from which it was removed.

23

this action.

24

Dated:

March 17, 2015

25
26
27
28
2

The Clerk of Court shall close