Golden West Foreclosure Service, Inc vs 3066 Market Street
ORDER granting 10 Stipulation to Remand Case. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/18/2014. The action is REMANDED in its entirely to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014)
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)
1 United States Attorney
THOMAS MOORE (ALBN 4305-O78T)
3 Chief, Tax Division
4 THOMAS NEWMAN (NYBN 4256178)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-7200
FAX: (415) 436-7009
Attorneys for United States of America
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
GOLDEN WEST FORECLOSURE SERVICE, ) Case No. C-14-2154-WHO
14 INC., a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
) STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE
3066 MARKET STREET, LL, et al.,
The parties stipulate as follows:
Defendant, the United States, removed this case from the Superior Court of California on
23 May 9, 2014, as case number CGC-14-538585.
The facts contained in this stipulation are not intended to be binding, except that
25 defendant the United States disclaims an interest in the proceeds from the sale of real property that was
26 sold and is the subject of this action.
Because this case involves property that the IRS may claim an interest, the United States
28 removed the case from state court as there was a federal claim related to the federal tax lien on the
1 subject property. The action was removed by defendant the United States of America pursuant to 28
2 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444.
Since the removal was filed, counsel for the United States has discussed this action with
4 plaintiffs’ counsel. The United States’ claim to the proceeds from the real property sale is the sole basis
5 for federal jurisdiction. In addition, it appears as though there may be significant or numerous state law
6 issues and the United States hereby disclaims an interest in the property at issue in this case. For that
7 reason, it the state law issues are more predominant and the there is no federal issue that would permit
8 federal jurisdiction over this case.
Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that this case should be remanded the County of
10 San Francisco Superior Court, and any pending hearing in this Court should be vacated.
DATED: August 15, 2014
United States Attorney
THOMAS M. NEWMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff GOLDEN WEST
FORECLOSURE SERVICE, INC.
Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court finds that the issues in this case arise predominantly
21 under state law. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district
22 court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see
23 also Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F. 3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding where
24 district court grants judgment on federal claims, district court, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), may properly
25 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). Further, a district court
26 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that “substantially predominate[ ] over the
27 claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). The
28 Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED in its entirely to the Superior Court
2 of California, in and for the County of San Francisco, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer forthwith
3 the instant order, at the following address:
Clerk, Superior Court of California
County of San Francisco
400 McAllister St.
San Francisco, CA 94102-4515
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 18, 2014
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
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?