Robertson v. County of Alameda

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting Plaintiff leave to amend and denying 20 Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. Amended complaint due by 09/10/15. Stipulation or opposition to 25 Plaintiff's motion to remand due by 09/14/15. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

FRANK ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,

6

v.

7
8

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

9

Case No. 15-cv-03416-TEH
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS AS MOOT

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants County of Alameda and Lori Cox have moved to dismiss the complaint,

12

and Plaintiff Frank Robertson has filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to

13

remove all federal causes of action and remand the case to state court.

14

At this early stage of the proceedings, Robertson may make the “straight-forward

15

tactical decision” to dismiss his federal claims and seek remand to state court. Baddie v.

16

Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court therefore GRANTS

17

Robertson’s request for leave to amend to remove all federal claims, thus rendering

18

Defendants’ motion to dismiss moot. Robertson shall file his amended complaint on or

19

before September 10, 2015. The Court encourages counsel to meet and confer to avoid

20

unnecessary litigation over whether the amended complaint continues to assert federal

21

claims.

22

In addition, this Court is not inclined to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over a

23

case that includes no federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a court

24

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over

25

which it has original jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer over

26

whether they stipulate to Robertson’s motion to remand. On or before September 14,

27

2015, either the parties shall file a stipulation and proposed order to remand this case or

28

Defendants shall file an opposition to Robertson’s motion to remand. If an opposition is

1

filed, Robertson shall file a reply on or before September 21, 2015, and this matter will

2

then be deemed submitted on the papers unless otherwise ordered.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 09/01/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

2