Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01622-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONDI VAN HORN, CASE NO. CV F 08-1622 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT SIDDIQI’S

APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME AND

MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 316, 318, 320)

vs.

TINA HORNBEAK, et al,

Defendants.

 /

This Court has received and reviewed defendant Naeem Siddiqi’s application to shorten time to

bring two motions: (1) amend the scheduling order to extend time to bring a motion to dismiss, and (2)

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 318 and 320.) The motion to dismiss is based this

Court’s grant of the various Summary Judgment motions which eliminated any federal question claims

before the Court. Defendant contends the Court should remand the case to State Court in the interest

of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

This Court DENIES the application to shorten time, but moves to the merits of the motion to

dismiss. The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss and exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction.

Ordinarily, if all claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed

before trial in a removed action, the remaining state-law claims should be remanded to state court. See

Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Acri holds that although the district

court "may," under section 1367(c), decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction in these

1

Case 1:08-cv-01622-LJO -DLB Document 327 Filed 04/29/10 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

circumstances, and ordinarily "should" dismiss the state law claims under United Mine Workers v.

Gibbs, that "has never meant that they must be dismissed." Acri, 114 F.3d at 1000 (citing United States

v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 291, 67 S.Ct. 677, 695 (1947). A court is not

compelled to remand a case in which federal question jurisdiction existed if the federal claim is later

dismissed. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int'l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 936 (9th Cir. 2003)

(court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after federal claim

dismissed (unless dismissal was for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1041

(2004). 

Here, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction. The parties have fought long and

hard in this Court. As can be seen from review of this Court’s docket, the parties have engaged in

extensive law and motion and other litigation related activities. As a result, this Court is familiar with

the claims, the facts and the parties. Indeed, the state law claims arise from the same nucleus of

operative facts that this Court has repeatedly considered and ruled upon over the course of this litigation. 

Further, the case is two weeks from the pretrial conference and six weeks from trial. Thus, judicial

economy and fairness do not warrant remanding at this late date. Finally, contrary to defendant’s

argument, this Court is capable of applying state law, such as the Medical InjuryCompensation Reform

Act, should relevant law be brought to this Court’s attention. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01622-LJO -DLB Document 327 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2