Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00371/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00371-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: Longshore Act/Maritime Personal Injury

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY SHARLAND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SINGHA ACE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-cv-371-L(DHB)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On February 10, 2012, Plaintiffs Nancy Sharland and Ajamu Shaw commenced this

action in the Southern District of California. (Doc. 1.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting a wrongful-death claim under 33 U.S.C. §§ 901, et seq.,

and a claim for violations of California Civil Procedure Code § 377.61 against Defendants

Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping, Inc., Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc., and Pacific Maritime

Association (“PMA”). In pursuing their claims, Plaintiffs invoked federal-question jurisdiction. 

(FAC ¶ 2.)

On November 7, 2012, PMA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 31.) The

Court granted PMA’s motion, and dismissed with prejudice the wrongful-death claim under 33

12cv371

Case 3:12-cv-00371-L-DHB Document 56 Filed 04/04/13 Page 1 of 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

U.S.C. §§ 901, et seq., and dismissed without prejudice the California Civil Procedure Code §

377.61 claim.

Plaintiffs now move to remand this matter to state court. (Doc. 55.) They explain in their

motion that they are moving for an order remanding this action to state court “in order to allow

Plaintiffs to pursue their supplemental state law claims after a previous Order of his court

appears to have eliminated any federal claims and a basis for Plaintiffs to maintain subject matter

jurisdiction.” (Pls.’ Mot. 2:2–5.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, the district court may remand a case 1

to state court after removal “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action was not removed from

state court, thus the Court lacks the authority to remand it. See id. Plaintiffs do not provide any

authority that permits the district court to remand a case to state court that originated in federal

court. Thus, the Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion as a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in

its entirety under Rule 41(a)(2) so that Plaintiffs may pursue their state-law claims in state court. 

The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. DAVID H. BARTICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

 Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Court’s previous order appears to be correct that the 1

Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may

also serve as a basis for dismissing this action. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P.,

541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972

(E.D. Cal. 2004)).

2 12cv371

Case 3:12-cv-00371-L-DHB Document 56 Filed 04/04/13 Page 2 of 2