MacKinnon v. Logitech Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER remanding case. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/20/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ROBERT MACKINNON, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 v. Case No. 15-cv-05231-TEH ORDER REMANDING CASE LOGITECH INC., et al., Defendants. 9 10 This Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims except Plaintiff United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Robert MacKinnon’s statutory age discrimination claim under Maryland law against 12 Defendant Logitech Inc. ECF No. 88. The Court ordered supplemental briefs from the 13 parties on that claim, including the following question: “In the absence of any federal or 14 California claims, should Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under Maryland state law be 15 tried by this Court or transferred to another court for resolution?” ECF No. 87 at 2. 16 The parties filed timely supplemental briefs. Both parties agree that this Court may 17 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Maryland claim now that no federal 18 claims remain. MacKinnon suggests that the Court should remand the case to the Superior 19 Court of California for the County of Alameda, from which this case was removed, and 20 argues that if the Court does not remand, the case should remain in this district and not be 21 transferred to Maryland. ECF No. 92 at 1-4. Logitech contends that the Court should 22 decide whether the Maryland claim survives summary judgment and, if it does not, either 23 dismiss the claim or transfer it to a district court in Maryland. ECF No. 91 at 2-3. 24 After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court declines to exercise 25 supplemental jurisdiction over MacKinnon’s Maryland claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) 26 (providing that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has 27 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Although Logitech would 28 like this Court first to decide summary judgment and decline to exercise supplemental 1 jurisdiction only if summary judgment were denied, the Court finds it more appropriate to 2 decline jurisdiction before weighing the merits of the remaining claim. This Court has no 3 interest in deciding issues of Maryland state law. The Court also declines to transfer a case 4 to another federal court when only one state-law claim remains for resolution. 5 Thus, the Court must decide whether to dismiss MacKinnon’s remaining claim or 6 remand the case to state court. To avoid any unfairness that might result from dismissal, 7 the Court finds remand to be more appropriate. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 8 U.S. 343, 351-53 (1988) (noting that “a remand generally will be preferable to a dismissal 9 when the statute of limitations on the plaintiff’s state-law claims has expired before the federal court has determined that it should relinquish jurisdiction over the case” and that, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 even when the statute of limitations has not expired, remand might still be preferable 12 because dismissal would “increase both the expense and the time involved in enforcing 13 state law”). 14 15 Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.1 The Clerk shall close the file. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 04/20/17 20 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 This result is not ideal since MacKinnon’s remaining claim would best be resolved by a Maryland state court. However, there appears to be no mechanism for this Court to effectuate such a transfer. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. 343 (allowing for dismissal or remand of a removed case); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (allowing transfer only to another district court). 2

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?