Merrill et al v. Mental Health Systems et al

Filing 38

ORDER: Granting Plaintiffs' 30 Motion to Remand; Dismissing All Other Pending Motions Without Prejudice As To Their Reassertion in State Court 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, 35 Motion to Dismiss, 35 Motion to Strike, 36 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/16/2016. (Certified copy of order was sent to State Superior Court). (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DAVID MERRILL, KIET LE, and
BENJAMIN HILL,

15
16
17
18

ORDER:

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND;

v.
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, a
California corporation; THE TRAINING
CENTER, a California corporation; JEAN
R. ALMONOR, an individual; and DOES
1 THROUGH 50, inclusive,

(2) DISMISSING ALL OTHER
PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AS TO THEIR
REASSERTION IN STATE COURT

Defendants.

19

[ECF Nos. 30, 31, 35, 36.]

20
21

Before the Court is Plaintiffs David Merrill, Kiet Le, and Benjamin Hill’s

22

(collectively, “Plaintiffs’”) motion to remand the instant case back to state court pursuant

23

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Dkt. No. 30.) Neither Defendant The Training Center (“TTC”)

24

nor Defendant Mental Health Systems (“MHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) opposes the

25

motion. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.) The Court deems Plaintiffs’ motion suitable for disposition

26

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having reviewed

27

Plaintiffs’ motion and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court

28

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand the instant case back to state court (Dkt. No. 30)
1
3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

1

and DISMISSES all remaining pending motions without prejudice as to their reassertion

2

in state court (Dkt. Nos. 31, 35, 36).

3

BACKGROUND

4
5

Having recited the facts of this case at length previously, the Court will detail only
relevant procedural background here. (See Dkt. No. 26.)

6

Plaintiffs filed the instant action on April 1, 2016, and Defendant MHS removed

7

the case to this Court on May 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Federal question jurisdiction (on

8

account of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim) constituted the sole grounds for removal. (Id. at 2.1)

9

Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss and motions to strike portions of

10

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 16, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.)

11

After conducting a hearing on September 9, 2016, the Court (1) granted Defendants’

12

motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim due to a lack of state action, (2) granted

13

Plaintiffs leave to amend their § 1983 claim and leave to conduct limited discovery on the

14

issue of state action, and (3) deferred ruling on the remainder of Defendants’ motions to

15

dismiss and motions to strike Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.)

16

On November 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

17

(Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiffs removed their § 1983 claim; as a result, the SAC contains only

18

the following state law claims: negligence, premises liability, intentional infliction of

19

emotional distress, breach of implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, battery, and

20

interference with a Constitutional right and right of protection from bodily harm and

21

restraint pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. (Id.)

22

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the instant case back to

23

state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and a motion to withdraw as attorney for

24

Plaintiff Benjamin Hill. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31.) Defendants do not oppose the motion to

25

remand. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.) Defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss

26

and motions to strike Plaintiffs’ SAC on December 13, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.)

27
28

1

All citations to the record refer to the pagination generated by the CM/ECF system.
2
3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

1
2

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “in any civil action of which the district courts

3

have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all

4

other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction

5

that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States

6

Constitution.” Yet, even “once judicial power exists under § 1367(a), retention of

7

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is discretionary.” Acri v.

8

Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). “The district court may decline

9

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district

10

court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §

11

1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed

12

before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of

13

Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667

14

F.2d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 1982) (asserting that “the district court should have dismissed the

15

pendent state claims” given that the district court properly entered judgment as to the

16

federal claims). In the event that all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, a

17

district court must weigh the following factors before declining to exercise pendent

18

jurisdiction: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Bryant v.

19

Adventist Health System/W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Carnegie-

20

Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614 (1988)).

21

First, the factor of comity weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

22

Here, the Court dismissed the claim over which it had original subject matter

23

jurisdiction—Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim—at an early stage in the litigation and deferred

24

ruling on Plaintiffs’ state law claims. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs’ subsequently filed SAC

25

contains no federal law claims. (Dkt. No. 29.) The SAC contains tort, property, and

26

statutory claims governed by California law. (Id.) Proceeding with only state law claims

27

in federal court will not serve a federal interest in the absence of diversity between the

28

parties. Rather, allowing a state court to adjudicate the remaining state law claims would
3
3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

1
2

better serve the interest of comity.
Judicial economy and procedural convenience also weigh in favor of granting

3

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Court focused solely on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim at the

4

September 9, 2016 hearing and in its Order granting in part and deferring in part

5

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.) To date, the Court has not ruled on

6

Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The instant litigation is in an early stage: Plaintiffs’ action

7

was filed in state court on April 1, 2016 and removed to this Court on May 5, 2016.

8

(Dkt. No. 1.) No answer has been filed, and no trial date has been set. Limited discovery

9

has been conducted only on the issue of state action in regard to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim,

10
11
12

which Plaintiffs no longer pursue in their SAC.
Finally, in light of Defendants’ non-opposition, the Court finds that the factor of
fairness weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.)

13

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

14

Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court REMANDS

15

this action back to state court and DISMISSES all other pending motions without

16

prejudice as to their reassertion in state court.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA