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)

Download PDF
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

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?