Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03172/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03172-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SORGEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03172 TEH

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On September 7, 2006 this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

judgment and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. As a result of these rulings, all of Plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed,

along with several state law claims. One state law claim for violation of California

Penal Code § 853(6)(i) remains. Plaintiff subsequently requested that the Court remand

this remaining claim to the state court in which the action was originally filed. The

Court asked the parties to submit letter briefs regarding this matter by September 28,

2006, and the issue was argued on September 29, 2006. Having carefully considered the

parties’ written and oral arguments, and the entire record herein, the Court grants

Plaintiff’s request to remand the remaining state law claim for violation of Calif. Penal

Code § 853(6)(i) to state court. 

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 51 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Defendants also raised the possibility that a state court might reopen

discovery but were not familiar with the governing state court rules on this subject. It

thus appears that this concern is purely speculative. Indeed, given that the parties have

had ample opportunity to conduct and complete discovery, there is no readily 

apparent reason (and Defendants offer none) as to why a state court would be obliged

to re-open discovery proceedings as a result of a remand. 

2

It is within the district court’s discretion whether to remand state claims to state

court in the event all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial. Harrell v. 20th Century,

934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court has weighed the relevant factors of

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and concludes that, on balance, these

factors weigh in favor of a remand. As Defendants emphasize, the factor of economy

weighs in favor of retaining the action since this Court is familiar with the state law

claim and the underlying facts. This is a relatively simple case, however, with one

plaintiff, two defendants, and uncomplicated facts. Thus, this factor, alone, does not

persuade the Court that retention of the state law claim is appropriate. 

Nor do Defendants identify any significant prejudice that would result from a

remand. While they note that Defendants have a general interest in bringing cases to

conclusion, they have identified no specific prejudice that would result from a remand. 

Further, as the Court noted at the hearing, the trial date in this case would have to be

continued in any event because of a conflict with this Court’s calendar that requires the

undersigned to be out of the state on the scheduled trial dates. Accordingly, a delay of

some duration, and the attendant inconvenience that may cause, would be inevitable even

if the case were retained in federal court.1

Significantly, a remand would further the interests of comity because it would

permit the state courts to preside over a case that now consists only of state law. This is

particularly true where, as here, there is relatively little state law addressing Penal Code

§ 853(6), and there are no reported cases involving the same issues as those asserted

here. Defendants’ suggestion that a remand does not further the interests of comity

because it could lead to possible inconsistent rulings appears highly unlikely given legal

doctrines such as law of the case and res judicata that are designed to avoid such issues. 

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 51 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Finally, a remand allows the Plaintiff to try his remaining state law claim for violation of

Cal. Penal Code § 853(6)(i) in his original choice of forum.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to remand this action is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim – that Defendants violated California

Penal Code § 853(6)(i) – is REMANDED FORTHWITH to the Superior Court for the

City and County of San Francisco pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2006 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03172-TEH Document 51 Filed 10/05/06 Page 3 of 3