Alatraqchi et al v. Uber Technologies,Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

RASHID ALATRAQCHI,
Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No.: C-13-03156 JSC
ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.

16
17
18

UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC., et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

Defendants removed this case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. At the

21

hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff represented that he did not

22

intend to allege any federal claims and that any amended complaint would plead state law claims

23

only. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had pled a federal claim and therefore removal was proper

24

and granted Defendant’s motion as to all claims. (Dkt. No. 27.) All claims were dismissed with

25

leave to amend, except for Plaintiff’s first and second claims against Defendant Scott Munro, which

26

were dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff subsequently filed his Amended Complaint, which does not

27

contain a federal claim, only state law claims.

28

1

The Court accordingly ordered Defendants to show cause as to why this case should not be

2

remanded to state court in light of the absence of any federal claim. Defendants timely responded,

3

and agreed that this case should be remanded since the Amended Complaint lacks a significant federal

4

question. (Dkt. No. 33.)

5

Given the absence of any federal claim in the Amended Complaint, the Court exercises its

6

discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

7

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental

8

jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); see Sanford v.

9

MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law

Northern District of California

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

11
United States District Court

10

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

12

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” (internal quotation marks

13

omitted)); see also Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[I]t is

14

generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendant claims to state court . . . .”).

15

Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to San Francisco County Superior Court.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 9, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2