MANDELAS v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C. et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 87 Defendant Gordon's Motion for Extension of Time to file dispositive motions; denying 89 Defendant Gordon's Motion to Dismiss by Judge James L. Robart.(MD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the court on Defendant Daniel N. Gordon, P.C.'s STEVEN MANDELAS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C10-0594JLR ORDER DENYING MOTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

16 ("Gordon") motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions (Dkt. # 87) and 17 motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 89). The court DENIES Gordon's motions. 18 In an order dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part

19 Gordon's motion for summary judgment. (Order (Dkt. # 85).) Specifically, the court 20 granted Gordon's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Steven Mandelas's claims 21 arising under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and denied Gordon's 22 motion for summary judgment on Mr. Mandelas's claims arising under Washington state
ORDER- 1

1 law, including the Washington Collection Agency Act ("WCAA") and the Washington 2 Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"). (Id.) On April 1, 2011, Gordon filed a motion for 3 an extension of time to file dispositive motions and a motion to dismiss Mr. Mandelas's 4 remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Mot. to Extend (Dkt. 5 # 87); Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. # 89).) Gordon contends that the court now lacks subject6 matter jurisdiction over this action because it dismissed all of Mr. Mandelas's federal 7 claims on summary judgment. (Mot. to Dismiss.) 8 The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides that where the

9 district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action, the district court "shall have 10 supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 11 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 12 Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A district court may, 13 however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: 14 15 16 17 18 19 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 20 "The decision whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state 21 law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed lies within the district court's 22
ORDER- 2

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

1 discretion." Foster v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). "[I]n the usual case 2 in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will 3 point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Acri 4 v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (quoting Carnegie5 Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). Where substantial judicial 6 resources have already been committed to the state-law claims, however, the district court 7 may properly retain jurisdiction over the claims. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 8 986, 994-95 (9th Cir. 1991); Acri, 114 F.3d at 1000 (recognizing the discretionary nature 9 of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and observing that "a federal district court with power to hear 10 state law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under the conditions set 11 out in § 1367(c)"). 12 Here, the parties have already completed discovery and dispositive motions in this

13 case and are now well into their final pre-trial preparations. Thus, because substantial 14 judicial resources have already been committed to the parties' dispute, and because 15 dismissing the state-law claims at this point would result in a significant duplication of 16 effort were Mr. Mandelas to re-assert them in state court, the court exercises its discretion 17 to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Mandelas's remaining WCAA and WCPA 18 claims. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Gordon's motion for an extension of

20 time to file dispositive motions (Dkt. # 87) and motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 89). 21 22 // //
ORDER- 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Dated this 6th day of April, 2011.

A

____

JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge

ORDER- 4