Stricker v. Shor et al

Filing 39

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/20/2018. (hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAPHAEL STRICKER,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 35

SAMUEL SHOR, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03491-HSG

12
13

On April 12, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims against Samuel Shor and Betty Maloney

14

for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 35. The sole federal claim in this action, alleging

15

copyright infringement, was brought only against Shor and Maloney, and the remaining parties

16

agree that no federal claims remain in the case. Dkt. No. 38 at 2. It is also clear that there is not

17

complete diversity among the parties, since plaintiff Stricker and defendant Buchman are both

18

California residents. Id.

19

With no federal claim remaining in this suit, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over

20

Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550,

21

561 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial,

22

the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,

23

convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

24

remaining state-law claims.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

The remaining claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed

1
2

to close the file. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: 4/20/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

5
6
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
1

26
27
28

The parties suggest that the remaining state law claims are subject to remand. Because the
complaint was filed in federal court in the first instance, dismissal without prejudice is the
appropriate course: a case cannot be remanded when it was never removed to this Court. See
Rivera v. Ndola Pharmacy Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 381, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (“Defendants
curiously denominate their motion as one to remand; however, the Court cannot remand these
claims because they were never removed from state court.”).
2