1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JOHN DOE, Case No. 5:22-cv-08685-BLF

8 Plaintiff, REMAND ORDER 9 v.

10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF 11 JUSTICE,

12 Defendant.

13 14 On December 13, 2022, Defendants City of Sunnyvale and Officer John Bognanno filed a 15 Notice of Removal removing this action from the Superior Court of California for the County of 16 Santa Clara. ECF No. 1; see Doe v. Dep’t of Just. of the State of Cal. et al., No. 22-cv-405055 17 (Santa Clara Super. Ct.). On August 19, 2024, the Court identified a jurisdictional issue regarding 18 the pending case and issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Remanded to State 19 Court. ECF No. 47. In their Joint Statement in response to the Order to Show Cause, which was 20 filed the following day, the Parties concurred that the matter should be remanded. ECF No. 48. 21 The Court therefore remands this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa 22 Clara. 23 A district court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “has 24 dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

(c)(3); Arroyo v. 25 Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims 26 are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the [United Mine Workers 27 of Am. v. Gibbs,

(1966),] doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 1 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

, 350 n.7 (1988). 2 Removal of this matter was based on federal-question jurisdiction. ECF No. | at 1-2. 3 Specifically, Plaintiff John Doe asserted claims under

against Defendants City 4 of Sunnyvale and Officer John Bognanno. ECF No. 2 at 11. However, on August 17, 2023, the 5 Court approved a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to all causes of action against 6 || Defendants City of Sunnyvale, Officer John Bognanno, and all Doe defendants alleged to be City 7 of Sunnyvale employees, contractors, or agents. ECF No. 35. Thus, all parties against which 8 Plaintiff asserted federal claims have now been dismissed. Nothing suggests that the instant 9 matter is any more than a usual case in which the Gibbs values point the Court toward declining to 10 || exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and the Parties are in agreement that remand 11 of this matter is appropriate. ECF No. 48 at 1. 12 For the stated reasons, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California 5 13 for the County of Santa Clara. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

= 17 Dated: August 20, 2024 18 faginfaceian TH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28