Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03384/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03384-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEANNETTE WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-03384-JSW 

ORDER REMANDING ACTION 

Re: Docket No. 23 

On October 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(“TCPA”), and it gave Plaintiff leave to amend that claim. The Court reserved ruling on 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), until it determined whether Plaintiff could state a viable 

federal claim. (Docket No. 22.) 

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Docket 

No. 23) Because Plaintiff did not re-assert a federal claim and because Plaintiff did not alleged 

any facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff filed a timely reply on November 16, 2015, and urged the Court to remand, rather 

than dismiss, the case. The Court has dismissed the only federal claim and there are no facts 

demonstrating the Court has original jurisdiction over this matter. A district court may decline to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a case arising from a common nucleus of operative fact 

where: (1) a novel or complex issue of state law is raised; (2) the claim substantially predominates 

Case 4:15-cv-03384-JSW Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

ove

circ

con

Inc

“fe

tow

Un

Un

fed

(fo

wh

cas

Lan

wh

afte

jud

exe

Ca

Da

er the federa

cumstances.

nsider factor

c., 114 F.3d 9

ederal-law cl

ward declinin

niv. v. Cohill

nited Mine W

deral claims 

otnote omitt

It woul

here Plaintiff

se. Cf. Trust

ndscape & M

here the distr

er long delay

dicial econom

ercise jurisdi

Accord

lifornia for t

IT IS S

ated: Novemb

al claim; (3) 

 See 28 U.S

rs such as “e

999, 1001 (9

laims are elim

ng to exercis

l, 484 U.S. 3

Workers of Am

are dismisse

ted), superse

d be equally

f originally f

tees of the C

Maintenance

rict court ord

ys). Therefo

my weigh ag

iction over th

dingly, the C

the County o

SO ORDER

ber 24, 2015

the district c

S.C. § 1367(c

conomy, con

9th Cir. 1997

minated befo

se jurisdictio

43, 350 n.7 

merica v. Gi

ed before tria

eded by statu

y convenient 

filed that clai

Construction 

e, Inc., 333 F

dered a dism

ore, the Cour

gainst retaini

he RFDCPA

ourt REMAN

of San Mateo

RED. 

5

2

court dismiss

c). In order 

nvenience, f

7) (internal q

ore trial, the 

on over the r

(1988), supe

ibbs, 383 U.S

al, ... the stat

ute, 28 U.S.C

for the parti

im. The Cou

Indus. & La

F.3d 923, 926

issal of state

rt concludes 

ing suppleme

A Claim. 

NDS this ac

o. The Clerk

ses the feder

to make this

fairness, and

quotations an

 balance of f

remaining sta

erseded by st

S. 715, 726 

te claims sho

C. § 1367. 

ies to try the

urt has expe

aborers Heal

6 (9th Cir. 2

e law claims 

 that the prin

ental jurisdic

ction to the S

k shall close

__

JE

Un

ral claims; o

s determinat

d comity.” A

nd citations 

factors to be

ate-law claim

tatute, 28 U.

(1966) (sugg

ould be dism

e RFDCPA c

ended minim

lth & Welfar

2003) (findin

 just seven d

nciples of co

ction in this 

Superior Cou

e the file. 

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

r (4) under e

tion, courts s

Acri v. Varian

omitted). W

e considered 

ms.” Carneg

.S.C. § 1447

gesting in di

missed as we

claim in state

mal resources

re Trust v. D

ng an abuse o

days before t

omity, conve

case, and it 

urt of the Sta

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

exceptional 

should 

n Associates

When 

... will point

gie-Mellon 

7(c); see also

icta that “if 

ll”) 

e court, 

s on this 

Desert Valley

of discretion

trial and 

enience, and 

declines to 

ate of 

____ 

ge 

s, 

t

o

y

n

Case 4:15-cv-03384-JSW Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2