Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00419/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00419-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNN T. CECIL and SUZIE CECIL, )

trustees of the CECIL FAMILY ) 2:07-CV-419-GEB-KJM 

REVOCABLE TRUST; RICK CECIL and )

LYNETTE CECIL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RAILWAY AND MINING )

MUSEUM, a Colorado Non-Profit )

Corporation, and YREKA WESTERN )

RAILROAD, a California Corporation,)

)

Defendants. )

 )

)

YREKA WESTERN RAILROAD, )

)

Counter-claimant, )

)

v. )

)

LYNN T. CECIL and SUZIE CECIL, )

trustees of the CECIL FAMILY ) 

REVOCABLE TRUST; RICK CECIL and )

LYNETTE CECIL, )

)

Counter-defendants. )

)

)

And Related Actions. )

)

Third Party Defendant Ralph Domenici (“Domenici”) argues in

the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement filed June 9, 2008 that

jurisdiction should not be exercised over Defendants’ Third Party

Complaint or Cross-Claim against him. The record reveals this

argument has merit. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was granted

in an Order filed February 26, 2008. No independent basis for subject

Case 2:07-cv-00419-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/13/08 Page 1 of 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

2

matter jurisdiction exists over Defendants’ Third Party Complaint or

Cross-Claim against Domenici.

It is within the court’s discretion whether to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction in a particular case. United Mine Workers

of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“It has consistently been

recognized that [supplemental] jurisdiction is a doctrine of

discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.”). Federal courts have the

discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a third party

complaint if the district court has entered judgment on “all claims

over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);

Dargis v. Sheahan, --- F.3d ---, 2008 WL 2066991, at *8-9 (7th Cir.

May 16, 2008) (upholding dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims

under § 1367(c)(3) following district court’s entry of judgment in

plaintiff’s favor on federal claims); Mooney v. Nw. Ill. Regional

Commuter R.R. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1182 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

(dismissing defendant’s third party complaint under § 1367(c)(3) after

plaintiff settled only federal claim against defendant). Summary

judgment has been granted on all claims in this action “over which

[there was] original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

Even though the district court’s “discretion to decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [Defendants’] state law claims

is triggered by . . . [§ 1367(c)(3)], it is informed by the Gibbs

values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian

Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)

(quotation marks omitted). Judicial economy would not be served by

continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’

Third Party Complaint or Cross-Claim since time has not been spent on

these claims. Further, “[n]eedless decisions of state law should be

Case 2:07-cv-00419-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/13/08 Page 2 of 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

3

avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the

parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable

law.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.

Since the Gibbs values favor declining exercise of

jurisdiction, Defendants’ Third Party Complaint and Cross-Claim are

dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(3). The final pretrial

conference scheduled for June 16, 2008, is vacated. Lastly, the Clerk

of Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor in accordance with

the Order filed February 26, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00419-MCE-CKD Document 39 Filed 06/13/08 Page 3 of 3