1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 JOEL ISMAEL ZUNIGA, Case No. 2:21-CV-1221 JCM (MDC)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS, INC, et al,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Plaintiff brought this class action because of alleged violations of both federal and state 14 law. However, this court dismissed the federal law claims, leaving only the state law claims to 15 be adjudicated. (See ECF No. 38). Jurisdiction over state law claims arises under supplemental 16 jurisdiction. See

. Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of 17 right. City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons,

(1997); United Mine 18 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,

(1966). A federal court may decline to exercise 19 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed claims over 20 which it has original jurisdiction. See

(c). The decision to decline to exercise 21 supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c) should be informed by the values of economy, 22 convenience, fairness, and comity. Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 23 1997) (en banc). 24 District courts have the power to remand cases sua sponte when lacking subject matter 25 jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.,

; May v. 26 California Hotel & Casino, Inc., No. 2:13–CV–00066–GMN,

, at *5 (D. Nev. 27 Apr. 14, 2014) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and 28 remanding the case to state court). Because plaintiff has no federal causes of action and the 1 parties are not diverse, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands this action to 2 Nevada state court. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case is 5 REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court. 6 DATED September 25, 2025.

7 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28