Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01295/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01295-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE MILES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROYCE MAKISHIMA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-1295 MMC

ORDER VACATING ORDER STRIKING

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT;

REMANDING ACTION

At the June 30, 2006 case management conference, the Court afforded plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint no later than September 1, 2006. (See Docket No. 31.) 

Plaintiff did not file her Third Amended Complaint until September 5, 2006, thus failing to

comply with the deadline previously imposed by the Court. In an order filed September 5,

2006, the Court struck plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice.

On September 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a declaration setting forth the reasons for her

failure to comply with the filing deadline. The Court finds plaintiff has set forth good cause

for her failure to file her Third Amended Complaint by September 1, 2006, and, accordingly,

VACATES its September 5, 2006 order striking the Third Amended Complaint.

Case 3:06-cv-01295-MMC Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In the Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff has dropped all of her federal causes of

action. There is no allegation of diversity of citizenship. Where, as here, the Court’s

jurisdiction is based on a federal question, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims where all of the claims over which it has original

jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “[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.” Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). 

Here, there is no reason to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

remaining state law claims, and the Court declines to do so.

Accordingly, the instant action is hereby REMANDED to the California Superior

Court for the County of San Mateo.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01295-MMC Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2