Robles v. In the Name of Humanity, We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America et al

Filing 104

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT IAN DABNEY MILLER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF KIARA ROBLES REQUESTS FOR CERTIFICATION, STAY AND EXTENSION OF TIME. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/16/19. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2019)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KIARA ROBLES,

5
6
7
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 17-cv-04864-CW

Plaintiff,
v.
IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY, WE
REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FASCIST
AMERICA, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT IAN DABNEY MILLER
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF KIARA
ROBLES’ REQUESTS FOR
CERTIFICATION, STAY AND
EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants.
(Docket No. 102)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Kiara Robles filed her Second Amended Complaint
against Defendant Raha Mirabdal alleging a count of a violation
of the Bane Act and Defendant Ian Dabney Miller alleging counts
of assault, battery and a violation of the Bane Act, all of which
are state law claims.

On December 4, 2018, the Court granted

Defendant Mirabdal’s motion to dismiss and dismissed without
prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against Mirabdal because Plaintiff
failed to respond to Mirabdal’s motion to dismiss despite an
extension by the Court, thereby failing to prosecute her case
against Mirabdal.

Docket No. 101.

On January 14, 2019,

Plaintiff, now pro se, filed requests to certify to the Ninth
Circuit the Court’s order revoking her counsel’s pro hac vice
status, to stay the proceedings and to extend time to respond to
Defendant Mirabdal’s motion to dismiss.

Docket No. 102.

The

Court had previously dismissed with prejudice claims alleging §
1983 violations against the University of California Board of
Regents and the City of Berkeley.

The only remaining claims are

1

Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Dabney Miller.

2

case management conference was scheduled for January 15, 2019.

3

No case management statements were filed as ordered and no one

4

appeared for the conference.

5

A

The Court hereby sua sponte dismisses without prejudice
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Dabney Miller.

7

sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

8

remaining state law claims” when a district court has dismissed

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

A court “may

Sikhs for

10

Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 3d. 1088,

11

1096 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

12

supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy,

13

convenience, fairness and comity.

14

654 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir. 2011).

15

In determining whether to decline

Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.,

Here, the factors tip in favor of declining supplemental

16

jurisdiction.

17

gone beyond the pleading stage and discovery has not yet started.

18

Moreover, Plaintiff brought only state law claims against

19

Defendant Dabney Miller; this tips in favor of declining

20

supplemental jurisdiction because state courts should interpret

21

state law in the first instance.

22

3d at 1097; see also Banga v. Kohl’s Dept Stores, Inc., C 13-

23

00275 SBA, 2013 WL 6734116, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)

24

(declining supplemental jurisdiction because the case was still

25

in the “early [pleading] stage”).

26

The case has not proceeded very far as it has not

Sikhs for Justice, 144 F. Supp.

The Court also finds Plaintiff’s requests for certification,

27

a stay and an extension to be meritless and hereby denies them.

28

The Court has already denied Plaintiff’s request to certify to
2

1

the Ninth Circuit the Court’s order revoking her counsel’s pro

2

hac vice status.

3

Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Mirabdal

4

after giving her an extension to respond and warning her that

5

dismissal was possible if she did not respond, Plaintiff cannot

6

seek to respond to Mirabdal’s motion to dismiss now.

7

Plaintiff’s request to stay proceedings is moot since no other

8

claims remain for the Court to stay.

Docket No. 99 at 8-10.

Further, because the

Lastly,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby declines

10

supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

11

Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims against Defendant Dabney

12

Miller.

13

dismissed without prejudice and are state law claims, the

14

dismissal is without prejudice to re-filing in state court,

15

although she must do so timely.

16

Plaintiff’s pending requests (Docket No. 102).

17

claims remain in the matter, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the

18

Court to close the file.

19

Since the claims against Dabney Miller and Mirabdal were

The Court also DENIES
Because no other

The parties shall bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 16, 2019
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3