McFarland v. County of Santa Cruz et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 42 Motion to Remand; granting 43 Motion to Shorten Time (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

SHANNON McFARLAND,

Case No. C-12-01727 RMW

11
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO REMAND

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, SHERIFF
PHIL WOWAK, OFFICER WILLIAM
GAZZA, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER
HANKES, OFFICER JOHN HABERMEHL,
BRUCE MCFARLAND, and DOES 1-99,
inclusive,

Re: Docket Nos. 42 and 43

15
16
17
18

Defendants.

19
20

Plaintiff Shannon McFarland moves the court for an order remanding this action to state

21

court on the basis that only state law claims remain against California resident Bruce McFarland.

22

Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiff also moves for an order shortening time for hearing her motion to remand on

23

the basis that the parties will suffer prejudice preparing for trial in this court if the court ultimately

24

remands. Dkt. No. 43. Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion to remand on the basis that this court

25

has already set a trial date, and he will be prejudiced by having to wait for the state court to resolve

26

the issue. See Dkt. No. 48.

27
28

Having reviewed the record in this case, the papers submitted by the parties, and for the
reasons set forth below, the court grants plaintiff's motions. Remand is proper because no federal
REMAND ORDER
Case No. C-12-01727 RMW
ALG
-1-

1

question remains in this case and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

2

Although the court has set a trial date, the court has done nothing substantive with respect to the

3

state law issue in this case and concludes that it would be improper to retain jurisdiction over

4

plaintiff's state law claim where no diversity exists.

5

Because both parties will benefit from an expedient order on plaintiff's motion to remand, the

6

court deems this motion proper for a decision without a hearing, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS

7

plaintiff's motion to remand on the papers.

8
9
10

Dated:

May 13, 2013

___________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REMAND ORDER
Case No. C-12-01727 RMW
ALG

-2-