Yates et al v. Graham Center, LLC

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting (26) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in case 3:08-cv-05159-JCS; granting (20) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in case 3:10-cv-00739-JCS (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CRAIG YATES,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.
GRAHAM CENTER, LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant.
___________________________________/

12

Case No. C-08-05159 JCS
Related Case No. C-10-0739 JCS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY
DEFENDANT GRAHAM CENTER, LLC
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION [FRCP
12(b)(1); FRCP 12(h)(3)] (Case No. C-0805159 JCS: Docket No. 26; Case No. C-100739 JCS: Docket No. 20)

13
14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendant Graham Center brings a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

16

Jurisdiction (Docket No. 20) (“the Motion”) seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s first amended

17

complaints in these two related cases on the grounds that: 1) Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans

18

with Disability Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq, are moot; and 2) the Court should

19

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

1367(c)(3). Plaintiff does not dispute that the ADA claims are moot but contends that the Court

21

should retain supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims in the interest of judicial efficiency.

22

The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to

23

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and therefore vacates the scheduled August 3, 2012 hearing. The Court

24

also vacates the Case Management Conference set for the same date and time. For the reasons

25

stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.1

26
27
28
1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

II.

2

ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff has conceded that his federal claims are moot, the only issue left to decide

3

is whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. A

4

federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Section

5

1367(a) provides that “in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the

6

district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims

7

in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy

8

under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Under § 1367(c)(3),

9

however, a district court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
state law claim where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

jurisdiction.” In exercising that discretion, courts consider whether the exercise of supplemental

12

jurisdiction is the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Carnegie-Mellon

13

University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988) ( “in the usual case in which all federal-law

14

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent

15

jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward

16

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims”) (citing Mine Workers v.

17

Gibbs., 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Having considered these factors, the Court declines to exercise

18

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in these two related cases.

19

III.

20

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims

21

are dismissed on the grounds that they are moot. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without

22

prejudice on the basis that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims

23

in the absence of any remaining federal claims in this action. The Clerk is directed to close the files

24

in these related cases.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 26, 2012

27
28

__________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
2