Ferguson et al v. California Department of Justice et al

Filing 27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 8/15/2017.Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/8/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP FERGUSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-06627-HSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

This action was initially filed in state court on April 20, 2016, and the first amended

14

complaint was filed on October 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1 & Ex. A (“FAC”). Plaintiffs are twenty

15

patients who received medical treatment from the Bay Area Consortium for Quality Healthcare.

16

FAC ¶ 1. The case was removed to federal court on November 15, 2016, on the basis of federal

17

question jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4. Two motions to dismiss the FAC were subsequently filed:

18

one filed by the State of California by and through the California Department of Justice

19

(collectively, “State Defendants”), Dkt. No. 4, and the other filed by six special agents employed

20

by the California DOJ (“Agents”), Dkt. No. 7.

21

On July 4, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ruling as follows as to

26

the particular causes of action:
The Fifth Cause of Action against the State Defendants is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The remaining causes of action
asserted against the State Defendants are DISMISSED without
leave to amend. In addition, the Court GRANTS the Agents’
motion to dismiss as to the cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
but does not reach the merits of the causes of action under California
law. The Fifth Cause of Action asserted against the Agents is
DISMISSED with leave to amend.

27

Dkt. No. 26 at 10. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint within 28 days of

28

the dismissal order. Id. at 11. That deadline has passed and Plaintiffs have not filed a second

22
23
24
25

1

amended complaint.
Given that the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ sole federal cause of action against the

3

Agents and that Plaintiffs have failed to file an amended complaint, the Court must now determine

4

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted under state law

5

against the Agents. See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A

6

district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims

7

over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c))). Where all claims pled

8

under federal law are eliminated before trial, the various pendant jurisdiction factors (judicial

9

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity) typically weigh in favor of declining to exercise

10

jurisdiction over the remaining claims pled under state law. Id. Given the early stage of these

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

proceedings, California’s interest in applying its own law, and the absence of any countervailing

12

factors, the Court does not intend to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims pled

13

against the Agents under California law. Since the sole basis of removal was federal question

14

jurisdiction, see Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4, remand of these state law claims is appropriate, see Carlsbad

15

Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 636–37 (2009); Bierman v. Toshiba Corp., No. C-10-

16

4203 MMC, 2010 WL 4716879, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010), aff’d, 473 F. App’x 756, 757

17

(9th Cir. 2012).

18

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs’ to show cause why the Court

19

should not take the following actions as to the causes of action pled against the Agents: (1)

20

dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action with prejudice, in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to amend; and (2)

21

remand all the remaining causes of action, which are pled under California law, to the Superior

22

Court of California, Alameda County. Plaintiffs have until August 15, 2017 to respond to this

23

order to show cause.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/8/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2