Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05795/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05795-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

DOREEN MACLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 12-5795 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

VALLEYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM’S

MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE

COURT

Before the Court is defendant ValleyCare Health System’s (“ValleyCare”) motion,

filed February 27, 2014, to remand the above-titled case to state court. Having read and

considered the motion, the Court finds no further briefing is necessary, and rules as

follows.

Contrary to ValleyCare’s argument, the pretrial dismissal or other disposition of the

federal claim(s) in a non-diverse removed action does not deprive the federal court of

subject matter jurisdiction; rather, the court, in its discretion, may either retain or decline to

retain supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting “once

judicial power exists under [28 U.S.C.] § 1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction

over state law claims under § 1367(c) is discretionary”). In this instance, trial is scheduled

to begin in less than a month, and, under such circumstances, the Court declines to

Case 3:12-cv-05795-MMC Document 76 Filed 03/03/14 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

1

 In light of the Court’s ruling, ValleyCare’s Application for Order Shortening Time to

Hear[] Motion to Remand Case to State Court is DENIED as moot.

2

exercise its discretion to remand the remaining state law claims. See Schneider v. TRW,

Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993-94 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognizing “extent of resources invested in . . .

case” as one of factors relevant to court’s exercise of discretion under § 1367(c)(3)).

Accordingly, ValleyCare’s motion to remand is hereby DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2014 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05795-MMC Document 76 Filed 03/03/14 Page 2 of 2