Manoos v. Citibank N.A.

Filing 21

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 20, 2008. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 20, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge On October 17, 2008, the parties appeared before the Court for a Case Management Conference. For the reasons stated at the Conference, and, in particular, in light of plaintiff's having filed a First Amended Complaint from which the sole federal claim has been removed, and plaintiff's representation to the Court that any further amended pleading will include only state law claims, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Mateo. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) (providing district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all claims over which district court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity -- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims"). IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court v. CITIBANK, N.A., dba CITI, Defendants. / REYNALDO M. MANOOS, an individual, Plaintiff, No. C-08-3359 MMC ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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?