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)
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?