Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 29 Motion to Relate Cases; terminating 32 Stipulation with Proposed Order. No stipulation was filed; Dkt. No. 32 appears to be a proposed order only, relating to Dkt. No. 29 . (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISABELLA TAYLOR, 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RELATE v. 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06428-KAW Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 29 12 13 On February 27, 2018, Lily Brinkhaus filed a motion to relate the instant case to Case No. 14 18-cv-804-JCS, Taylor v. Mendocino Community Health Clinic. (Dkt No. 29.) On March 5, 15 2018, Plaintiff Isabella Taylor filed an opposition, arguing that Taylor v. Mendocino Community 16 Health Clinic was improperly removed, and that there was no basis for federal jurisdiction over 17 that case. (Dkt. No. 30.) On March 6, 2018, Ms. Brinkhaus filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 33.) 18 Having reviewed the parties' filings, the Court DENIES the motion to relate. While both 19 cases are based on the same facts, there does not appear to be any grounds for asserting federal 20 jurisdiction over Taylor v. Mendocino Community Health Clinic. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. 21 Lasoff, Case No. CV 10-235 MMM (RCx), 2010 WL 669239, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010) 22 ("The court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim based on claims in a 23 completely separate federal action"); MFC Twin Builders, LLC v. Fajardo, No. 1:12-cv-219-AWI- 24 SKO, 2012 WL 3862399, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012) ("Courts have expressly and clearly 25 rejected attempts to remove actions based on the relationship of the civil action to be removed and 26 another separate action already pending in federal court"). Thus, because Taylor v. Mendocino 27 Community Health Clinic will likely need to be remanded, Civil Local Rule 3-12's requirement 28 that "there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if 1 2 3 the cases are conducted before different Judges" is not satisfied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2018 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 4 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 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?