Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01690/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01690-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASUNCION LOPEZ, 

NO. CIV. S-05-1690 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

THE CITY OF CHICO; SHERWIN

WILLIAMS, INC.; DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

Pending on the February 5, 2007 law and motion calendar are

two motions for summary judgment filed by the two named defendants:

The Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”) and the City of

Chico. The court resolves the matter based on the papers and

without oral argument.

Plaintiff, Asuncion Lopez, initially filed suit in Superior

Court in Butte County, California on June 28, 2005. Plaintiff

alleged that defendants Sherwin-Williams and the City of Chico

violated both federal and state law. Specifically, plaintiff

alleged the following claims: violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

Case 2:05-cv-01690-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 There has been no other law and motion practice in this 1

case. 

2

the California Unruh Act, negligence, battery, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. On August 19, 2005, the case was

removed to this court. The removal was premised on jurisdiction

being proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 30, 2006 defendant Sherwin Williams filed the

pending motion for summary judgment. The City of Chico filed its

pending motion for summary judgment on December 28, 2006. 

1

Plaintiff filed oppositions to both motions for summary

judgment on January 16, 2007. In her opposition to the City of

Chico’s motion, plaintiff concedes that she “has not supported

[her] claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City.” Pl.’s Opp’n

to City of Chico Mot. for Summ. J. at 9:5-6. Given that plaintiff

concedes that there is no possibility of liability under § 1983,

this court no longer has original jurisdiction and must determine

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

state law claims. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3), the “district courts may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . .

if . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which

it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3). It is well

established that the exercise of pendent jurisdiction to hear state

law claims is within the discretion of the federal district court.

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Several factors are considered in determining whether the

Case 2:05-cv-01690-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

court should exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims.

These factors include economy, convenience, fairness, and comity

in deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over pendent state

claims. Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Co., 976 F.2d 1303,

1309 (9th Cir. 1992)(citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484

U.S. 343, 353(1988)). “In the usual case in which federal-law

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . .

will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at

350 n. 7.

In the case at bar, the Carnegie-Mellon factors weigh in favor

of remand. This case was originally filed in state court, only

state law claims remain, no significant law and motion practice has

occurred and the case has yet to proceed to trial. Moreover, the

pending motions for summary judgment can easily be filed in state

court. Taking into account judicial economy, convenience,

fairness, and comity, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction

over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the court orders

as follows:

1. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County

of Butte.

2. The pending motions for summary judgment are DENIED as

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01690-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

 moot. The hearing set for February 5, 2007 is also 

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 18, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01690-LKK -DAD Document 44 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 4