Peterson v. City of Yakima

FILED IN THE 3 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Nov 07, 2023 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MARK PETERSON, NO. 1:18-CV-3136-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND ORDER OF REMAND CITY OF YAKIMA, TONY O’ROURKE, MARK SOPTICH, and ANTHONY DOAN, 12 Defendants.

13 SUA SPONTE, THE COURT raises the issue of its continuing jurisdiction over the only remaining claim in this case. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed.

16 DISCUSSION 17 The only claim left in this case is Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution under Washington State law. On October 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and remanded that claim back to the district court. ECF No. 249. All other claims have been resolved.

1 A federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims to the extent they are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the state and federal claims would normally be tried together.” Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Once the court acquires supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, § 1367(c) provides that the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if 10 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which 11 the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in 12 exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

14 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Indeed, “[i]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ.

17 v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

1 Here, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction for several reasons. First, the Court no longer has any federal claims to proceed with. 28 3 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims when federal claims were dismissed).

7 Second, if Plaintiff chooses to try the case in state court, the parties’ completed discovery can easily be utilized in that forum.

9 Third, state court is a particularly appropriate forum in which to address Plaintiff’s remaining state law.

11 The values of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, fairness, and comity would be no more advanced by retaining the case in this Court than by the parties resolving the state law claim in state court.

14 For all of these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

16 // // // // // ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Plaintiffs state law claim of malicious prosecution is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court in and for the County of 4|| Yakima, former case number 17-2-034663-9.

5 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, provide copies 6|| to counsel, mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Yakima County 7\| Superior Court, and CLOSE the file.

8 DATED November 7, 2023.

9 4f eas Se Wa 0. Kies 10 On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge