Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00958-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CRISTOBAL ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00958-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND TO STATE COURT

Before the Court is Cristobal Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion To Remand Entire Action To 

State Court. Motion, ECF 66. On August 19, 2019, mere weeks before the long-scheduled trial 

date in this action, Plaintiff filed his motion for remand on the ground that because this Court has 

granted summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, leaving only state law claims, the 

Court should exercise its discretion and remain the entire case to state court. See id. For the reasons 

discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

On the night of January 8, 2017, Plaintiff sat in his car stopped at the side of the road with a 

mechanical breakdown that caused “backfiring.” Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 5, ECF 

39. Two California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) officers responded to an on-duty sergeant’s report of 

an explosion from the car or possible “shots fired,” and approached Plaintiff’s stopped car. Hill 

Decl. ¶ 2-4, Ex. 2 to ECF 45-1. After hearing a loud sound coming from Plaintiff’s car, one officer 

exclaimed “Shots fired!” and “Get back.” See generally Morasco Decl. ECF 46-5, Bleisch Decl. 

ECF 46-3. After hearing a second loud sound from Plaintiff’s car seconds later, both officers opened 

fire, believing that the loud sounds coming from Plaintiff’s car were gunfire. Id. One of the bullets 

struck Plaintiff. Hill Decl. ¶ 9. There is no evidence that Plaintiff possessed a gun during the 

Case 5:18-cv-00958-BLF Document 80 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

encounter.

Arising from the incident described above, Plaintiff filed this action in California state court 

on January 17, 2018, against the CHP, Sergeant Daniel Hill, Officer David Morasco, Jr., and Officer 

Jonas Bleisch (collectively, “Defendants”). See Compl., Ex. A to Notice of Removal, ECF 1. On 

February 14, 2018, Defendants removed the action to federal court. See Notice of Removal. 

Plaintiff brought the following five causes of action: 

(1) Violation of Civil Rights secured by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against Officers Morasco and Bleisch); 

(2) False Arrest and Imprisonment pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820.4 (against 

the CHP and Officers Morasco and Bleisch); 

(3) Battery pursuant to California state law and Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2(a) (against the CHP 

and Officers Morasco and Bleisch); 

(4) Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (against the CHP and 

Officers Morasco and Bleisch); and

(5) Negligence under California law and Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 815.2(a) & 820.4 

(against all Defendants). 

See generally SAC. On September 6, 2018, this Court issued its Case Management Order, 

setting this matter for jury trial on September 30, 2019. ECF Doc 34.

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2019, seeking judgment 

in their favor on all claims. See ECF 45. The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on May 2, 2019. On June 24, 2019, this Court issued its Order Granting in Part 

and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s 

federal claims and leaving only Plaintiff’s state-law claims for battery1and negligence. ECF 58. 

 

1

In their Opposition to this Motion, Defendants inform the Court that “Plaintiff’s counsel has 

recently advised [Defendants’ counsel] that Plaintiff is abandoning his state-law Battery claim.” 

Opp’n. at 4, n. 1. Whether or not the battery claim remains in this case does not impact the

Case 5:18-cv-00958-BLF Document 80 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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 California

Plaintiff has chosen not to appeal the Court’s Summary Judgment Order. Motion at 3. 

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed this Motion. Three days later, on August 22, 2019, this 

Court held its Final Pretrial Conference. ECF 75. On September 3, 2019, Defendants filed their 

opposition to the motion for remand. Opp’n, ECF 78. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief. Jury 

selection is to commence on September 27, 2019—two weeks from the date of this Order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives original jurisdiction to the federal court where a civil action arises 

under federal law, while 28 U.S.C. § 1441 establishes when cases brought in a state court of which 

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed to federal courts. 

District courts have the power to extend their jurisdiction over state-law claims when those claims 

“derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” as the federal-law claims, “such that [a plaintiff] 

would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 

383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) allows district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction where “(1) 

the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over 

the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has 

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there 

are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). But, § 1367(c) does 

not require district courts to relinquish jurisdiction. “The decision whether to continue to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed lies 

within the district court’s discretion.” Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Foster v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Anderson v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 1980) (“It is [...] well-established that the dismissal of 

the federal claim does not deprive a federal court of the power to adjudicate the remaining pendent 

state claims.”).

In deciding whether to maintain jurisdiction over the state claims, courts “should consider 

 

Court’s decision on whether to remand this case to California state court. 

Case 5:18-cv-00958-BLF Document 80 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, 

convenience, fairness, and comity” and should decline the exercise of jurisdiction “[w]hen the 

balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law 

claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain.”

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (emphasis added).

III. DISCUSSION

In his Motion, Plaintiff’s sole argument for remand is that “factors of fairness and comity 

weigh heavily in favor of remand” because “Plaintiff’s negligence claim, which survived summary 

judgment, is grounded in state law.” Motion at 4. In Plaintiff’s view, “[a]ny inefficiency caused by 

the fact that two different courts would end up presiding over this case would be greatly outweighed 

by the advantages, in terms of fairness and comity, of having the state court preside over a uniquely 

state law claim.” Id. at 5. Defendants respond that “[a]t this late stage of this litigation, where the 

parties are literally days away from beginning the trial of this matter, judicial economy and fairness 

weigh in favor of this Court retaining pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claim and 

proceeding to trial on September 27, 2019.” Opp’n at 3. The Court agrees with Defendants. 

First, judicial economy weighs heavily against remanding this case. Plaintiff recognizes that 

“this Court has invested significant time and effort in this case” but argues that “those efforts will 

not have been wasted in the event of a remand.” Motion at 4. The Court disagrees. This Court is 

closely familiar with the facts and issues in this case because the parties have been before it for a 

case management conference, two settlement conferences (before Magistrate Judge DeMarchi), a 

motion hearing, and a pre-trial conference. See ECF 32, 43, 54, 62. Further, this Court has issued 

a Summary Judgment Order in this case regarding all of Plaintiff’s claims. ECF 58. The parties 

have proposed, and the Court has reviewed jury instructions. ECF 77. If remanded, the state court 

will undoubtedly have to familiarize itself with the facts and remaining issues and prepare for a trial. 

Such outcome is inconsistent with principles of judicial economy.

Second, values of convenience and fairness weigh in favor of moving forward with trial in 

this Court, which is to commence in two weeks. Fairness dictates that Defendants are entitled to a 

timely resolution of this case. Plaintiff does not explain how proceeding with trial would be unfair 

Case 5:18-cv-00958-BLF Document 80 Filed 09/12/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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 California

to him. See generally Motion. Presumably, Plaintiff’s interests would also be served by resolving 

this case sooner rather than later. In fact, both parties had originally requested a trial in March 

2019—six months before the now-scheduled trial. ECF 31. The case could be delayed up to two 

years as it waits in line for a trial date in a busy state trial court. 

Moreover, the parties have undoubtedly spent many hours preparing for trial. See e.g.,

Opp’n at 3 (“[D]efense counsel has expended approximately 72 hours of time (excluding time for 

preparing this Opposition) in preparing Pretrial Conference materials for this case and preparing this 

matter for trial to begin on September 27, 2019.”). At this late stage, the parties have prepared 

pretrial statements (ECF 70), witness list (ECF 70-1), exhibit list (ECF 70-2), proposed jury 

instructions (ECF 77), and other pre-trial materials. The Court expects that the parties have also 

nearly completed their review and preparation of evidence and witnesses. If remanded, all such

efforts will necessarily be duplicated because the parties would be required to prepare for another 

trial at a later date and in accordance with state court’s rules and procedures. 

Finally, comity does not tip the scale in favor of remand. Plaintiff argues that “negligence 

claim, which survived summary judgment, is grounded in state law that provides a basis for recovery 

in police shooting cases that is significantly broader than what is allowed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 

Motion at 4. While considerations of comity typically weigh in favor of allowing state courts to 

rule on state-law issues, on balance, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh heavily in 

favor of denying remand. See Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350 (“[T]he doctrine of pendent 

jurisdiction ... is a doctrine of flexibility, designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving 

pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00958-BLF Document 80 Filed 09/12/19 Page 5 of 5