1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 NICHOLAS SERRANO BY AND No. 2:24-cv-00442-JAM-CSK THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD 10 LITEM, JOSE ANTHONY SERRANO, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND 12 v. DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS 13 CITY OF STOCKTON, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA, 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES 1- 10, MOES 1-50, AND ROES 1-50, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Nicholas Serrano filed the present action on 18 September 27, 2023, in the San Joaquin County Superior Court, 19 asserting six causes of action against Defendants City of 20 Stockton, County of San Joaquin, Does 1–10, Moes 1–50, and Roes 21 1–50 for: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional 22 distress; (3) assault; (4) battery; (5) negligent hiring, 23 supervision, and retention; and (6) violation of the Fourth 24 Amendment under

. ECF No. 1. On February 9, 25 2024, City of Stockton removed the case to federal court under 26 federal question jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed 27 Plaintiff’s claims against Does 1–10, Moes 1–50, and Roes 1–50 on 28 April 29, 2024. ECF No. 13. 1 City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin filed Motions for 2 Summary Judgment on November 4, 2025, seeking judgment on all 3 causes of action against them. ECF Nos. 21, 22. In opposition 4 to each Motion, Plaintiff concedes that summary judgment is 5 appropriate on his claims for battery, negligent hiring, 6 supervision, and retention, and violation of the Fourth Amendment 7 under

. ECF No. 23-1 at 5; ECF No. 24-1 at 5. 8 Thus, the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fourth, 9 fifth, and sixth causes of action in favor of City of Stockton 10 and County of San Joaquin. 11 Because the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 12 sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 13 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims for 14 negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 15 assault. See Ove v. Gwinn,

, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A 16 court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 17 related state-law claims once it has ‘dismissed all claims over 18 which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1367(c)(3))); Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys/W.,

, 20 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming the district court’s decision 21 to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after 22 the court granted summary judgment on the federal claims). Thus, 23 the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes 24 of action without prejudice to their re-filing in state court. 25 I. ORDER 26 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants 27 City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin’s Motions for Summary 28 Judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 22) in part. The Court GRANTS summary ee nn nee ne nnn nnn en EE I OE EO EE

1 judgment on Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action 2 in favor of City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin. The 3 Court also DISMISSES Plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes 4 of action without prejudice to their re-filing in state court. 5 The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: December 9, 2025

9 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28