Orlando Garcia v. Oxnard Inn, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. CV 21-2055-JFW(JEMx) Date: April 26, 2021 Title: Orlando Garcia -v- Oxnard Inn, LLC, et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present

Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND REMANDING TO VENTURA

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

In Plaintiff's Notice of Dropping the Federal Cause of Action, filed April 23, 2021 (Docket No. 24), Plaintiff states that he has filed a First Amended Complaint and “[d]ropped the only federal cause of action, i.e., the cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Indeed, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed April 23, 2021 (Docket No. 23), only alleges claims for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. “[A] federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). “‘[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine – judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity – will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.’” Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act, the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction, has been dismissed, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and REMANDS this action to Ventura County Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.