Gonzales et al v. San Diego, City of et al

Filing 42

ORDER Remanding Case to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/7/2017. (Certified Copy sent to State Court)(sjt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HENRY GONZALES et al., Case No.: 15-cv-1033-L(RBB) Plaintiffs, 11 12 v. 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This action against the City of San Diego for excessive force was removed from 17 state court based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal 18 question was raised by Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their 19 Fourth Amendment rights. The Court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 20 1367(a) over related state law tort claims. 21 The action has been pending in this Court without any motion practice since the 22 filing of the amended complaint on August 31, 2015 until it was set for a final pretrial 23 conference. According to the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order, Plaintiffs abandoned their 24 sole federal claim and intended to proceed only on their state law tort claims. (Pl.'s Reply 25 to Def.'s Resp. to OSC (doc. no. 40) at 1.) In the absence of any remaining basis for 26 federal jurisdiction, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not 27 be remanded to state court. Defendant responded, arguing remand would be contrary to 28 1 15-cv-1033-L(RBB) 1 judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. Plaintiffs counter that remand 2 is appropriate. 3 A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction [if it] has 4 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, ... ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 5 The Court is not obligated to continue to exercise its jurisdiction when the basis for 6 original jurisdiction is no longer present. Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 7 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). "While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 8 jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 9 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values of economy, convenience, fairness, and 10 comity." Id. at 1001 (referring to United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); 11 internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) "[I]n the usual case in which all federal- 12 law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward 13 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon 14 Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (quoted in Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). 15 The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that remand would be contrary to 16 judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. With the exception of an 17 unopposed motion to dismiss more than three years ago, which culminated in the 18 voluntary filing of the operative amended complaint, there has been no motion practice. 19 The discovery cut-off date was repeatedly extended during a series of settlement 20 conferences held before the Magistrate Judge. In the absence of any motion practice, this 21 Court is unfamiliar with the case. Aside from settlement conferences, the parties did 22 hardly anything to avail themselves of this Court so far. Judicial economy and fairness 23 therefore do not favor retaining jurisdiction. As stated in Carnegie-Mellon, comity 24 counsels against it. In light of the foregoing, Defendant's proposition that it would be 25 more convenient to try the case in this Court is not persuasive. 26 ///// 27 28 2 15-cv-1033-L(RBB) 1 2 3 The action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 7, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 15-cv-1033-L(RBB)

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?