Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc. et al
Filing
40
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 28, 2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2018)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PRIME MECHANICAL SERVICE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
11
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST CAUSE
OF ACTION
v.
9
10
Case No. 18-cv-03307-MMC
FEDERAL SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed the sole claim over
14
which the Court has original jurisdiction, specifically, the Second Cause of Action,
15
wherein plaintiff asserted a claim under 40 U.S.C. 3133(b) against defendant Indemnity
16
Company of California. The remaining claim, the First Cause of Action, alleges a state
17
law claim for breach of contract against defendant Federal Solutions Group, Inc. (“FSG”),
18
a claim as to which the Court’s jurisdiction is supplemental in nature. See 28 U.S.C. §
19
1367(a).
20
Where, as here, the district court has “dismiss[ed] all claims over which it has
21
original jurisdiction,” such court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
22
remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In this instance, as the case
23
has not progressed past the pleading stage, FSG has not appeared, and there are no
24
apparent considerations weighing in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the state law
25
claim, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
26
the First Cause of Action. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)
27
(holding “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages
28
and only state-law claims remain,” federal courts ordinarily “should decline the exercise of
1
2
3
4
jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice”).
Accordingly, the First Cause of Action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to
plaintiff’s refiling said claim in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: November 28, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
7
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
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?