Martinez et al v. Lumber et al

Filing 45

ORDER to Show Cause Why Remaining State Law Claims Should Not Be Dismissed Without Prejudice; and ORDER Setting Schedule. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 11/6/09. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 11/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

AUGUSTINE MARTINEZ, et al.,

) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AC LUMBER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 07-2710 PVT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE

On October 28, 2009, this action was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, based on the parties representation to District Judge Fogel that they would consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Based on the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no, later than November 17, 2009, each party shall file a written "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge" (copies of which are available from the clerk of the court, or from the Forms (Civil) section of the court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than November 20, 2009, Plaintiffs shall file a brief showing cause why, in light of Plaintiffs' withdrawal of their only federal claims,1 this case should not be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a complaint in state court. See 28 See Joint Pretrial Conference Statement (docket no. 41) at 3:8-10, 4:11-13 & 5:16-18. OR D E R, page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988) ("in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine-judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity-will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims").2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims, the parties shall appear for a trial setting conference at 2:00 p.m. on December 8, 2009. Dated: 11/6/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

The statute of limitations concern articulated in Carnegie-Mellon was later addressed when congress enacted the supplemental jurisdiction statute, which includes a provision tolling the statute of limitations for state law claims when they are filed along with federal claims in district cour t. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) OR D E R, page 2

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OR D E R, page 3 copies mailed on 11/9/09 Surinder Chawla 3739 Arlen Court San Jose, CA 95132 Amar S. Chawla 3739 Arlen Court San Jose, CA 95132 /s/ Donna Kirchner CORINNE LEW Courtroom Deputy for to: Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court's Electronic Case Filing system.