Ramos v. Los Rios Community College District

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/6/18 REMANDING this case to Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento. All pending dates before this court are hereby VACATED. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

----oo0oo----

10
11

ANGELA RAMOS, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-01458 WBS KJN

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO REMAND

LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, a public entity;
THOMAS KLOSTER dba METRO-MATH
TUTORING SERVICES, a company;
THOMAS KLOSTER, an individual;
DOES 1-50, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18
19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Plaintiff sued Los Rios Community College (“Los Rios”),

22

Thomas Kloster, and Thomas Kloster dba Metro-Math Tutoring

23

Services (“Metro-Math”) in Sacramento County Superior Court on

24

June 13, 2017.

25

multiple state law claims.

26

removed the case to this court, which had original jurisdiction

27

because of the Title IX claim.

28

She alleged a violation of Title IX alongside
One month later, defendant Los Rios

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Following the dismissal of several of plaintiff’s state
1

1

law claims, plaintiff reached a settlement agreement with Los

2

Rios.

3

dismiss Los Rios and Kloster individually (with prejudice).

4

(Docket No. 45.)

Plaintiff and Los Rios subsequently filed a stipulation to

5

Now, three state-law claims against defendant Metro-

6

Math remain.1

7

to remand these claims to state court.

8

Math, which has not appeared in this court, has filed no

9

opposition.

10

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion
(Docket No. 46.)

Metro-

It is within the court’s discretion to continue to

11

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law

12

claims.

13

(9th Cir. 1991)(“It is well settled that a federal court does

14

have the power to hear claims that would not be independently

15

removable even after the basis for removal jurisdiction is

16

dropped from the proceedings”)(quotations and citation omitted).

17

In evaluating whether or not to do so, the court must consider

18

the values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

19

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988).

20

Supreme Court has noted that in “the usual case” in which all

21

federal claims are eliminated before trial and only state law

22

claims remain, these factors will typically “point toward

23

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

24

claims.” Id. at 350 n.7.

25
26
27
28

1

See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205

The

The court should also decline to

The three state-law claims remaining against defendant
Metro-Math are: (1) Violation of California Civil Code § 52.4;
(2) Sexual harassment in violation of Government Code §§ 12900 et
seq.; and (3) Failure to take steps to prevent and/or correct
harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, in violation of
Government Code §§ 12940 (j) & (k).
2

1

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that

2

require “multiple decisions on important, unsettled, and policy-

3

laden issues of California law.”

4

Tech., 339 F. 3d 1158, 1181 n.28 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

Holly D. v. Cal. Inst. Of

This case has been pending before this court for more

6

than a year, and the court has developed some level of

7

familiarity with its facts.

8

until September 2019.

9

economy consideration may militate slightly in favor of the court

However, trial is not scheduled

Given these circumstances, the judicial

10

continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

11

plaintiff’s state-law claims.

12

balance, weigh in favor of remand.

13

remand because the state court is equally competent to hear the

14

remaining state law claims and may have a better understanding of

15

the relevant state law.

16

favor of exercising jurisdiction.

17

equally convenient for the parties, and there is no reason to

18

doubt that the state court will provide an equally fair

19

adjudication of the plaintiff’s claims.

20

The remaining factors, however, on
Comity weighs in favor of

Convenience and fairness do not weigh in
The state and federal fora are

The balance of these factors weighs in favor of remand.

21

Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental

22

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims.

23

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be, and the

24

same hereby is, REMANDED to Superior Court of the State of

25

California in and for the County of Sacramento.

26

dates before this court are hereby VACATED.

27

Dated:

November 6, 2018

28
3

All pending