Bykov v. Rosen et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting Defendants' 80 Motion for Summary Judgment or dismissal. Plaintiff's remaining claims against Defendants Murphy and Naylor are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

VLADIK BYKOV,

10

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C15-0713-JCC

MICHELINE MURPHY and her marital
community, and MARCUS NAYLOR and
his marital community,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Murphy and Naylors’ motion for

17

summary judgment or dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Dkt. No. 80).

18

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral

19

argument unnecessary and hereby DISMISSES remaining state law claims without prejudice.

20

Plaintiff Vladik Bykov brought suit in this Court against Defendants Rosen, Rogers,

21

Murphy, and Naylor, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the U.S. Constitution, and

22

state tort law. 1 (Dkt. Nos. 8, 59.) The Court dismissed all federal claims without leave to amend.

23

(Dkt. No. 56.) The only remaining claims are state law tort claims against Defendants Murphy

24

and Naylor—causes of action ten, twelve, and thirteen in the Second Amended Complaint. (See

25
1

26

The Court has thoroughly discussed the facts and procedural history of this case and
will not repeat this information here. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 75, 79.)

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

Dkt. Nos. 56, 59, 75, 79.) Defendants now move for summary judgment or dismissal of these

2

claims. (Dkt. No. 80.)

3

Because the remaining claims are based on state law, and Plaintiff’s response to

4

Defendants’ present motion raises novel issues of state law, the Court exercises its discretion to

5

dismiss these claims as outside the scope of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §

6

1367(c)(1),(3). “In the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the

7

balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,

8

convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

9

remaining state-law claims.” Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.

10

2008). Those factors point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction here.

11

Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 80) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s remaining claims

12

against Defendants Murphy and Naylor are DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to

13

amend.

14

DATED this 23rd day of January 2018.

A

15
16
17

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 2