Funkhouser v. DAC FF 91, INC.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Funkhouser v. DAC FF 91, INC.

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JEDREK FUNKHOUSER, Case No. 19-cv-01197-MMC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION 10 v. FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO STATE COURT 11 DAC FF 91, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 41 12 Defendants.

13 14 Before the Court is a “Joint Stipulation,” filed December 11, 2019, by which the 15 parties seek an order dismissing plaintiff’s sole federal claim and directing the remaining 16 claims, all of which are alleged under state law, be “removed to the Santa Cruz County 17 Superior Court.” (See Joint Stip. at 3:25-26.) By order filed November 7, 2019, the Court 18 denied the parties’ previous request for such transfer because the “parties ha[d] not cited 19 any authority for such procedure.” (See Doc. No. 40.) 20 In the instant stipulation, the parties, citing Herklotz v. Parkinson,

848 F.3d 894 21

(9th Cir. 2017), assert there “no longer [is] subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.” 22 (See Joint Stip. at 3:20-21.) The pleadings addressed in Herklotz are distinguishable 23 from those presented here, see Herklotz,

848 F.3d at 897-98

(holding district court lost 24 jurisdiction over state law Crossclaim after defendant “opted to sever” it, thereby creating 25 “entirely new and independent case”; distinguishing case in which federal claim is 26 dismissed and “pendant [state law] claims remain part of the original action”), and, in any 27 event, the parties therein neither sought nor obtained a transfer from federal to state 1 Consequently, the parties having failed to cite any authority supporting their 2 requested relief, and the Court having located none, the Court declines to issue the 3 proposed order. Nothing herein, however, is intended to preclude plaintiff from 4 || dismissing his federal claim, seeking thereafter an order dismissing his state law claims 5 || without prejudice, and then refiling those state law claims in state court. See

28 U.S.C. § 6

1367(c)(3)&(d); see also Artis v. D.C.,

138 S. Ct. 594

(2018). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: December 13, 2019 ; . AKINE M. CHESNEY 10 United States District Judge 11 12

13

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown