Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02051/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

YOSENIO LEWIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DANIEL KIRRANE, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02051-DMR 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

On May 6, 2015, Defendants removed this case after Plaintiff added a federal cause of 

action to his state court lawsuit. See Docket No. 1. In his August 28, 2015 Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff abandoned his federal claim, which prompted Defendants to file a motion to dismiss the 

suit for lack of jurisdiction. See Docket Nos. 23, 26. In his opposition, Plaintiff does not contend 

that the court has subject matter jurisdiction because the case involves federal questions or because 

the parties are diverse; instead, Plaintiff urges the court to exercise its discretion and remain 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1967. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction.”) (emphasis added); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) 

(“A district court’s decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every 

claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”). 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:15-cv-02051-DMR Document 27 Filed 09/16/15 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 

issu

ove

Co

Da

The cas

ue unrelated

er the remain

unty of San 

IT IS S

ated: Septem

se is still at t

d to the merit

ning claims 

Francisco. 

SO ORDER

mber 16, 2015

the pleadings

ts. The cour

and orders th

RED. 

5

2

s stage and t

rt therefore d

hat the case 

___

the court has

declines to e

be remande

__________

 Un

s issued a rul

xercise supp

ed to the Sup

___________

Donna M. 

nited States M

ling on only 

plemental jur

perior Court

__________

Ryu 

Magistrate J

one discrete

risdiction 

t for the 

________ 

Judge 

e

Case 4:15-cv-02051-DMR Document 27 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2