Bourdel v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, et al

Filing 23

ORDER that Plaintiff Christian Bourdel's remaining state law negligence claim is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/30/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

CHRISTIAN BOURDEL,

Case No. 2:12-cv-01213-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER
11
12

v.
WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC and
KENNETH BOTT,

13
Defendants.
14
15
16

On April 30, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the federal claims brought

17

by Christian Bourdel against Defendants Kenneth Bott and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC.

18

(See dkt. no. 22.) With only a negligence cause of action surviving Defendants’ Motion

19

to Dismiss, the Court ordered the parties to show cause as to why the Court should not

20

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Having received no responses within the

21

fourteen day deadline, the Court now dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice

22

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the

24

district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so

25

related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the

26

same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1367(a). However, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a

28

plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims if it “dismissed all claims over which it has original

1

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). This decision is “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad

2

Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009). Here, the claims over which the

3

Court had original jurisdiction were dismissed with prejudice, leaving only a

4

supplemental state law negligence cause of action. The Court declines to hear this

5

remaining claim.

6

responded to the Court’s request to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over Bourdel’s

7

negligence claim.

This decision is particularly appropriate here, where neither party

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Christian Bourdel’s

9

remaining state law negligence claim is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

10
11

jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case.
DATED THIS 30th day of May 2013.

12
13
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2