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)

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