Bonner v. AM Cal Home Loans, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER REMANDING ACTION to the California Superior Court of the County of Alameda (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2011) Modified on 3/2/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF).

Bonner v. AM Cal Home Loans, Inc.

Doc. 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case was originally filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. It was removed to this Court on August 25, 2010. The Court had jurisdiction because plaintiff made federal law claims. Plaintiff no longer brings any federal law claims. See Fourth Am. Compl. A federal district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court when no federal claim remains. See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991). "The district court's decision to remand . . . is dependent upon what `will best accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.'" Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988)). "`[I]n the usual case' the balance of factors will weigh toward remanding any remaining pendent state claims to state court." Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7). In particular, a district court has "a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction" when all federal claims have been eliminated at an early stage of the litigation. Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350­51. This case is at the motion to dismiss stage. The Court has not yet held an initial case management conference. The complaint raises a large number of state law claims, including some based on new or newly revised statutes relating to mortgage foreclosure that the state courts have only just v. AM CAL HOME LOANS, INC., et al. Defendants. / CHARLES A. BONNER, Plaintiff, No. C 10-03788 SI ORDER REMANDING ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

begun to interpret. For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The motion hearing set for March 4, 2011 and the case management conference set for April 15, 2011 are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2011 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2