Sowles v. Cortez et al

Filing 8

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR REMAND re 3 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 5/17/10. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2010)

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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney THOMAS M. NEWMAN (CTBN 422187) Assistant United States Attorney 9th Floor Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JOHN AND LEAH SOWLES, Plaintiff, v. ALICE K. CORTEZ, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STIPULATION 1. The facts contained in this stipulation are not intended to be binding. The parties

Case No.: 10-cv-1367-PVT STIPULATION FOR REMAND

are agreeing to certain facts to show that the case should be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. 2. Plaintiff commenced this action on or about September 4, 2009, as Case No.

109CV151608, in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The suit alleged, among other things, quiet title related to property that the United States has an interest. 3. Because of the quiet title claim, the United States removed the case from state

court as there was a federal claim involving a federal tax lien on the subject property. The action was removed by defendant the United States of America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444. 4. Since the removal was filed, counsel for the United States has discussed this
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 10-cv-1367-PVT

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

action with plaintiffs' counsel. The quiet title action involves a boundary dispute related to two adjacent parcels. Defendant, the United States has a claim against the property involved in the boundary dispute related to IRS liens of another defendant. The United States' interest in property involved in the quiet title action is the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Every other issue involves California State law. In addition, the United States' interests, and the basis for federal jurisdiction, are minor in comparison to the property issues. It is now clear that the property issues not only predominate, and the United States is likely to stipulate to the outcome and judgment related property dispute. 5. Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that this case should be remanded the

Santa Clara County Superior Court, and any pending hearing in this Court should be vacated. 6. this action. This United States shall serve a copy of this stipulation on every other party to

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney /s/ Thomas M. Newman THOMAS M. NEWMAN Assistant United States Attorney Tax Division

DATED: April 21, 2010

By: /s/ Edward L. Chun_________ EDWARD L. CHUN BOSSO WILLAMS, PC Attorneys for plaintiff

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 10-cv-1367-PVT

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 v. ALICE K. CORTEZ, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, JOHN AND LEAH SOWLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JF/ Case No.: 10-cv-1367-PVT O RDER

Based on the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that the issues in this case arise predominantly under state law. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F. 3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding where district court grants judgment on federal claims, district court, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). Further, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that "substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 10-cv-1367-PVT

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

forthwith the instant order, at the following address: Office of the Clerk Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________ Dated: 5/17/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 10-cv-1367-PVT