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)

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)