Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C. et al v. City of Sebastopol et al
Filing
61
ORDER to Show Cause Regarding this Court's Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Writ of Mandate Claims (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA,
LLC and ARMSTRONG DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTIES, INC
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
v.
No. C13-1383
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING THIS COURT'S
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS'
WRIT OF MANDATE CLAIMS
CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, and
GLENN SCHAINBLAIT
Defendants.
___________________________________/
13
14
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as
15
Plaintiffs' Second and Third Claim for Relief – Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to California
16
Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 and Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate pursuant to
17
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, respectively. The parties do not address the extent to
18
which this Court has jurisdiction over these writ claims or why, even if supplemental jurisdiction
19
extends to these claims, the Court should consider them. However, this Court has an obligation to
20
satisfy itself of the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global
21
Grp., LP, 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004).
22
Authority exists in this Circuit suggesting that federal courts do not have the power to issue
23
writs of mandate under § 1085. See Hill v. County of Sacramento, 466 F. App’x 577, 579 (9th Cir.
24
2012) (“The district court also correctly rejected Hill’s claim for a writ of mandate under Cal. Civ.
25
Proc. Code § 1085 to compel the defendants to comply with federal regulations . . . . Cal. Civ. Proc.
26
Code § 1085 authorizes only state courts to issue writs of mandate.”).
27
28
However, even if such mandate claims fall within the supplemental jurisdiction of federal
courts, a number of courts have declined to exercise that jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(1), a
novel or complex issue of State law.” Federal district courts in this state have frequently declined to
3
exercise jurisdiction over California writ of mandate claims on this basis. See, e.g., Mory v. City of
4
Chula Vista, No. 10-cv-252 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL 7777914 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2011) (“Because
5
writs of mandate are exclusively state procedural remedies, they involve complex issues of state law.
6
Thus, district courts routinely deny supplemental jurisdiction over California writ of mandate
7
claims.”); City Limits of N. Nev., Inc. v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-1244-GEB-GGH, 2006
8
WL 2868950 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2006) (“Since Plaintiffs’ state claim involves mandamus
9
proceedings that are uniquely in the interest and domain of state courts . . . Plaintiff’s state claim is
10
dismissed under section 1367(c)(1).” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Clemes v. Del
11
For the Northern District of California
district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if the claim “raises a
2
United States District Court
1
Norte County Unified Sch. Dist., 843 F. Supp. 583, 596 (N.D. Cal. 1994), overruled on other
12
grounds, Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Mandamus proceedings
13
to compel a state administrative agency to act are actions that are uniquely in the interest and domain
14
of state courts. It would be entirely inappropriate for a federal court, through exercise of its
15
supplemental jurisdiction, to impose itself upon such proceedings.”).
16
Additionally, other district courts have declined supplemental jurisdiction over California
17
writ of mandate claims where the plaintiff’s mandamus claim predominated over any federal claim.
18
See, e.g., Tomlinson v. County of Monterey, No. C07-00990 RMW, 2007 WL 2298038 (N.D. Cal.
19
Aug. 8, 2007) (“The court has original jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s 28 U.S.C. § 1983 claim,
20
however the merits of that claim are bound up with the mandamus determination that plaintiff seeks.
21
The mandamus relief requested constitutes the core of this lawsuit. Consequently, the state law
22
claims predominate over the federal claims and the court may properly decline to exercise
23
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).”).
24
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiffs’ writ of
25
mandamus claims should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The parties
26
shall expressly address: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction over the mandamus claims; (2) the
27
extent to which the mandamus relief requested either does or does not predominate over the asserted
28
federal claim; and (3) whether considerations of federalism and comity militate in favor of dismissal.
2
1
The parties shall file cross briefs in response to this order. The briefs shall not exceed 7 pages in
2
length and shall be filed no later than 5:00pm, Wednesday, February 19, 2014. If necessary, the
3
parties may file cross-responses, not to exceed 4 pages, no later than 5:00pm, Friday, February 21,
4
2014.
5
The hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, currently set for Thursday,
6
February 20, 2014, is VACATED and will, if necessary, be re-set for a future date after the Court
7
considers the parties’ response to this order.
8
9
Dated: February 12, 2014
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?