Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04188/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04188-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SIMPSON TIMBER COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-04188 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

This case stems from the pollution of a seventeen-acre site of property in Eureka,

California. Before settling with Plaintiffs by way of consent decree, Defendant Preston

Properties – owner of the contaminated site – cross-claimed against Defendant Simpson

Timber Company under five state-law causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) indemnity based

on tort of another; (3) implied indemnity; (4) nuisance; and (5) public nuisance. Simpson

now moves to dismiss based on a multitude of theories, including lack of capacity, lack of

jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Because all federal claims have been resolved, the

Court declines to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over Preston’s cross-claim and Simpson’s

motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.

 It is the practice of federal courts “to dismiss state law claims once the federal claim

has been resolved” prior to trial. Danner v. Himmelfarb, 858 F.2d 515, 523 (9th Cir. 1988)

(citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)). That practice is predicated on, 

Case 3:06-cv-04188-CRB Document 145 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\4188\MTD Order.wpd 2

among other things, traditional notions of comity and respect for the state court system. 

Here, all of the plaintiffs’ federal claims have been resolved. The federal claims

between Plaintiffs and Preston were settled by order dated January 11, 2008; the federal

claims between Plaintiffs and Simpson were settled by order dated March 21, 2008; the

federal claims between Plaintiffs and Defendant North Coast Railroad Authority were

dismissed with prejudice on March 21, 2008; and the federal claims between Plaintiffs and

Defendant SHN Consulting were dismissed with prejudice on April 9, 2008. 

Because all of the federal claims are now resolved, the “values of judicial economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity” heavily weigh in favor of dismissing Preston’s statebased cross-claim without prejudice. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350

(1988). Accordingly, Simpson’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04188-CRB Document 145 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2