Lancaster v. City of Pleasanton et al

Filing 119

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge William Alsup on September 24, 2013. (whalc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRIAN LANCASTER,

No. C 12-05267 WHA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

12
13
14
15
16

CITY OF PLEASANTON; OFFICER TIM
MARTENS; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA;
DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN SILCOCKS;
LESLEY REGINA; LISA SECORD; LOUIS
SECORD; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

/

17
18
19

The undersigned judge has reviewed the parties’ responses to the order to show cause why

20

the remaining state law claims should not be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

21

Both sides agree that the undersigned judge has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction of

22

the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) now that all federal claims have

23

been either resolved or dismissed. Plaintiff finds no legal reason for the Court to retain

24

jurisdiction of the state-law claims (Dkt. No. 116). Defendant Silcocks agrees with the plaintiff

25

that this Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims (Dkt.

26

No. 117). Given the early resolution of the federal claims in this dispute, the undersigned judge

27

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

28

1
2

Accordingly, all remaining state-law claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to
refiling in state court. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 24, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2