Abuka v. El Cajon Police Department et al
Filing
50
ORDER Granting 48 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action for wrongful death based on negligence in Case No. 17-cv-347-BAS-NLS under Rule 41(a)(2) so that Plaintiffs may pursue their state law claim in state court. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 5/18/2018. (rmc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
RICHARD OLANGO ABUKA,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
Case No. 17-cv-00089-BAS-NLS
consolidated with
Case No. 17-cv-00347-BAS-NLS
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
MOTION
v.
CITY OF EL CAJON, et al.,
[ECF No. 48]
Defendants.
18
19
20
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Taina Rozier, C.O., and H.C.’s
21
(“Plaintiffs”) ex parte motion for an order declining supplemental jurisdiction over
22
Plaintiffs’ state law claim for wrongful death based on negligence. (ECF No. 48); see
23
ECF No. 5 in Case No. 17-cv-347-BAS-NLS (Fourth Cause of Action). Defendants
24
do not object to this motion. (ECF No. 49.)
25
Plaintiffs’ claim is based on the events when Alfred Olango’s sister called 911
26
seeking emergency medical help for Mr. Olango, whom she believed was
27
experiencing a mental breakdown. (ECF No. 5 (in Case No. 17-cv-347).) El Cajon
28
Police Officer Richard Gonsalves responded to the call and confronted Mr. Olango,
–1–
17cv0089
1
shooting and killing him within a few minutes of arriving. (Id.) Currently, another
2
case based on the same events is set for trial on June 22, 2018 in San Diego Superior
3
Court. (ECF No. 48 at 3 (referring to Olango v. City of El Cajon, Case No. 37-2017-
4
00005331-CU-PO-CTL).) Plaintiffs allege that this case “will necessarily involve the
5
same factual determinations as would be decided by the trier of fact in Plaintiffs’
6
Fourth Cause of Action for wrongful death based on negligence.” (Id.)
7
Plaintiffs now move for this Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over
8
this single claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (ECF No. 48 at 3.) Under
9
Section 1367(c)(4), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
10
claim if, “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for
11
declining jurisdiction.” In addition to determining whether exceptional circumstances
12
exist, a court must also “accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness,
13
and comity” when declining jurisdiction. Exec. Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
14
(Page), 24 F.3d 1545, 1556 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Cal. Dept.
15
of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2008).
16
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should decline jurisdiction because “collateral
17
estoppel and/or res judicata will likely be asserted by the prevailing party in
18
whichever litigation is decided first to preclude a different result in the subsequent
19
litigation” (Id. at 4-5.) Thus, Plaintiffs allege they “may suffer irreparable harm if
20
they are precluded from defending their interests” in the upcoming state trial. (Id.)
21
However, Plaintiffs do not include any allegations about how these concerns would
22
be rectified by the Court declining jurisdiction, nor do they address the additional
23
values the Court must also consider when declining jurisdiction. See
24
Exec. Software, 24 F.3d at 1556. Therefore, after reviewing Plaintiffs’ motion, the
25
Court construes Plaintiffs’ request as a request for voluntary dismissal under Federal
26
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2) (“[A]n action may be
27
dismissed [without prejudice] at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms
28
–2–
17cv0089
1
that the court considers proper.“) The Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim
2
without prejudice would be proper in light of the related state action.
3
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 48)
4
and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for
5
wrongful death based on negligence in Case No. 17-cv-347-BAS-NLS under Rule
6
41(a)(2) so that Plaintiffs may pursue their state law claim in state court.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
DATED: May 18, 2018
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
17cv0089
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?