Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01090/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01090-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MERRILL, KIET LE, and 

BENJAMIN HILL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, a 

California corporation; THE TRAINING 

CENTER, a California corporation; JEAN 

R. ALMONOR, an individual; and DOES 

1 THROUGH 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO REMAND; 

(2) DISMISSING ALL OTHER 

PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AS TO THEIR 

REASSERTION IN STATE COURT

[ECF Nos. 30, 31, 35, 36.]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs David Merrill, Kiet Le, and Benjamin Hill’s 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs’”) motion to remand the instant case back to state court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (Dkt. No. 30.) Neither Defendant The Training Center (“TTC”) 

nor Defendant Mental Health Systems (“MHS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) opposes the

motion. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.) The Court deems Plaintiffs’ motion suitable for disposition 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having reviewed 

Plaintiffs’ motion and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand the instant case back to state court (Dkt. No. 30) 

Case 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA Document 38 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

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

and DISMISSES all remaining pending motions without prejudice as to their reassertion 

in state court (Dkt. Nos. 31, 35, 36).

BACKGROUND

Having recited the facts of this case at length previously, the Court will detail only 

relevant procedural background here. (See Dkt. No. 26.) 

Plaintiffs filed the instant action on April 1, 2016, and Defendant MHS removed 

the case to this Court on May 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Federal question jurisdiction (on 

account of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim) constituted the sole grounds for removal. (Id. at 2.1) 

Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss and motions to strike portions of 

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 16, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) 

After conducting a hearing on September 9, 2016, the Court (1) granted Defendants’

motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim due to a lack of state action, (2) granted 

Plaintiffs leave to amend their § 1983 claim and leave to conduct limited discovery on the 

issue of state action, and (3) deferred ruling on the remainder of Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss and motions to strike Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.)

On November 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 

(Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiffs removed their § 1983 claim; as a result, the SAC contains only 

the following state law claims: negligence, premises liability, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, breach of implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, battery, and 

interference with a Constitutional right and right of protection from bodily harm and 

restraint pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. (Id.) 

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the instant case back to 

state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and a motion to withdraw as attorney for 

Plaintiff Benjamin Hill. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 31.) Defendants do not oppose the motion to 

remand. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.) Defendants subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss 

and motions to strike Plaintiffs’ SAC on December 13, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.)

 

1 All citations to the record refer to the pagination generated by the CM/ECF system.

Case 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA Document 38 Filed 12/16/16 Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

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

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), “in any civil action of which the district courts 

have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all 

other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction 

that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 

Constitution.” Yet, even “once judicial power exists under § 1367(a), retention of 

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is discretionary.” Acri v. 

Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). “The district court may decline 

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district 

court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “if the federal claims are dismissed 

before trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.” United Mine Workers of 

Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667 

F.2d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 1982) (asserting that “the district court should have dismissed the 

pendent state claims” given that the district court properly entered judgment as to the 

federal claims). In the event that all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, a 

district court must weigh the following factors before declining to exercise pendent 

jurisdiction: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Bryant v. 

Adventist Health System/W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting CarnegieMellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614 (1988)).

First, the factor of comity weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. 

Here, the Court dismissed the claim over which it had original subject matter 

jurisdiction—Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim—at an early stage in the litigation and deferred 

ruling on Plaintiffs’ state law claims. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs’ subsequently filed SAC

contains no federal law claims. (Dkt. No. 29.) The SAC contains tort, property, and 

statutory claims governed by California law. (Id.) Proceeding with only state law claims 

in federal court will not serve a federal interest in the absence of diversity between the 

parties. Rather, allowing a state court to adjudicate the remaining state law claims would 

Case 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA Document 38 Filed 12/16/16 Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA

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

better serve the interest of comity.

Judicial economy and procedural convenience also weigh in favor of granting 

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Court focused solely on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim at the 

September 9, 2016 hearing and in its Order granting in part and deferring in part 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26.) To date, the Court has not ruled on 

Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The instant litigation is in an early stage: Plaintiffs’ action 

was filed in state court on April 1, 2016 and removed to this Court on May 5, 2016. 

(Dkt. No. 1.) No answer has been filed, and no trial date has been set. Limited discovery

has been conducted only on the issue of state action in regard to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim, 

which Plaintiffs no longer pursue in their SAC.

Finally, in light of Defendants’ non-opposition, the Court finds that the factor of 

fairness weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 33, 34.)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court REMANDS

this action back to state court and DISMISSES all other pending motions without 

prejudice as to their reassertion in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01090-GPC-JMA Document 38 Filed 12/16/16 Page 4 of 4