UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 25-622-JFW(ASx) Date: March 26, 2025 Title: Pete Macias -v- County of Los Angeles, 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 VACATING TEXT ENTRY ORDER [filed 3/26/2025; Docket No. 21]; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS FEDERAL CLAIMS PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2) AND REQUEST FOR REMAND TO STATE COURT [filed 3/25/2025; Docket No. 17]; On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff Pete Macias (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Federal Claims Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2) and Request for Remand to State Court (“Motion”). On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff and Defendant County of Los Angeles filed a Joint Statement Re: Meet and Confer Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, advising that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s dismissal of his federal claims. In light of Defendant’s non-opposition, the Court VACATES its Text Entry Order filed on March 26, 2025 striking Plaintiff’s Motion and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to

(c). See

(c); Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

(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.’”). Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.