Williams v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/17/2010. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2010)

Williams v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Doc. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants. /

No. C 10-04657 CRB ORDER OF REMAND

Pro se Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams brought suit against Aurora Loan Services in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, in August 2010, alleging: breach of the warranty of habitability, contract; breach of the warranty of habitability, tort; negligence; breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; breach of the covenant of goof fainted [sic] fair dealing; nuisance; violation of Civil Code § 1941.1 and 942.3; "untenantable dwelling"; retaliation under Civil Code § 1942.5; two counts of wrongful eviction- common law; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract; and a cause of action entitled "civil rights violation," under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See generally Not. of Removal Ex. 1. Defendants removed the case in October 2010, based on federal question jurisdiction, "in particular the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983." See Not. of Removal (dckt. no. 1) at 2. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (dckt. no. 6) and a Motion to Strike (dckt. no. 8) in this Court, both calendared for January 7,

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

2011. Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Remand (dckt. no. 15) in which she asserts that she is "dropping the Civil Rights Violation (42 USC @ [sic] 1983) and asking Judge Charles R. Breyer to send plaintiff case back to Superior Court of California." The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's sole federal claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). In light of this Voluntary Dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state court claims. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 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 . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims."). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the case to state court; the motion hearings on January 7, 2011 are hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2010

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2010\4657\order re voluntary dismissal.wpd

2