1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 HARLAN DEAN GRAVES, Case No. 5:20-cv-01211-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v. 10

11 FORBES SECURITY, INC., et al., Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff Harlan Graves filed this civil rights action against Defendants City of Palo Alto 15 (“the City”), Forbes Security, Inc. (“Forbes”), and Palo Alto Town and Country Village Inc. 16 (“Town and Country Village”) asserting the following claims: (1) assault and battery against 17 Forbes; (2) premises liability against Town and Country Village; and (3) violation of his Fourth 18 Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure under

against the 19 City. Dkt. No. 17. The City and Forbes have appeared and responded to the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 20 31, 32. Town and Country Village has not appeared or otherwise defended this action. On 21 September 24, 2021, Graves and the City stipulated to dismissing the City. Dkt. No. 38. 22 Because the only claim supplying this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over the 23 action was Graves’s § 1983 claim against the City, dismissal of the City divested the Court of 24 subject matter jurisdiction.

. Graves and Forbes agree that the Court lacks 25 subject matter jurisdiction, and Forbes asks that the Court dismiss the action. Dkt. No. 41 at 2. 26 Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases which the Constitution and Congress 27 authorize them to adjudicate: cases involving diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or 1 those to which the United States is a party. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC,

, 376– 2 77 (2012); see also Chen-Cheng Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp.,

, 1415 3 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal courts have no power to consider claims for which they lack subject- 4 matter jurisdiction.”), overruled on other grounds by United States ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic 5 Concepts, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2015). The Court has a continuing obligation to ensure 6 that it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Any party may raise the 7 defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. 8 Shinseki,

, 434–35 (2011). The plaintiff always bears the burden of establishing 9 subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.,

(1994). 10 The parties do not dispute that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 11 Dkt. No. 41 at 2. Graves’s remaining state law claims are before this Court pursuant to the 12 Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See

(a). Such jurisdiction is discretionary, 13 Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1997), supplemented,

(9th 14 Cir. 1997), and Forbes essentially requests that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction. See 15 Dkt. No. 41 at 2. 16 District courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” where they have 17 “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

(c)(3). As the 18 Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have “often repeated,” “in the usual case in which all 19 federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors will point toward declining to 20 exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Acri,

(quoting 21 Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

, 350 n.7 (1988) (alterations omitted)). There is 22 nothing before the Court suggesting that this is anything other than the “usual case.” As the Court 23 has not considered the merits of Graves’s state law claims, there is no judicial economy interest in 24 retaining the case. 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 26 Graves’s remaining state law claims, which are DISMISSED without prejudice. Graves may seek 27 to re-assert his claims against Forbes and Town and Country Village in state court. 1 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 12, 2021 4 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:20-cv-01211-EJD ORDER DISMISSING ACTION