Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05330/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05330-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

THE BLUFFS SENIOR HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California

limited liability company,

Debtor.

________________________________

MICHAEL D. MCGRANAHAN, Chapter 7

Trustee for the Estate of the

Debtor,

Plaintiff,

v.

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a

public utility, WILLIAM M.

KETSCHER, an individual and

employee of MODESTO IRRIGATION

DISTRICT,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-5330 OWW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

OVER REMAINING CLAIM

On April 13, 2005, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

was granted in part. (Doc. 48). Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) on Plaintiff’s claim

for Equitable Indemnity (Count II) was denied, and Defendant’s

Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claims were

granted, including Plaintiff’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C.

Case 1:04-cv-05330-OWW Document 49 Filed 04/25/05 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

§ 1983, concluding the only federal claim in this case. Count II

is the only remaining claim. 

“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.” 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3). The Court’s decision whether to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by values of

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Acri v. Varian

Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997); Trustees of the

Constr. Indus. and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert

Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (2003) (“To

decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3), the district court must

first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise of

discretion and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the

objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the parties,

and comity.”).

The sole basis for original federal jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s civil rights claim was under 24 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count

IV). Count IV is no longer viable because Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on that claim was granted. The Court had

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for Equitable

Indemnity, a state law claim. Plaintiff claims that Modesto

Irrigation District (“MID”) should indemnify Plaintiff for the

removal and replacement of a pipeline. The pipeline is located

on land belonging to a railroad and was allegedly constructed

pursuant to a license issued to Stanislaus County by the

railroad. (First Amended Complaint 5). 

The pipeline removal project is local in nature, as is the

Case 1:04-cv-05330-OWW Document 49 Filed 04/25/05 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

real property in dispute. There are no strong federal policies

involved in the pipeline removal project, which inherently

involves a local dispute over real property. (See Doc. 48, Order

Granting in Part Def.’s Motion for Summary Judgment 6-14). There

is an extensive history of state court proceedings relating to

this and other disputes between the parties. The parties

informed the court at oral argument on March 7, 2005, that other

state court proceedings relating to this matter are ongoing. 

To avoid inconsistent results and to recognize the advanced

stage of development of the dispute in the state court system,

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Equitable Indemnity

claim must be declined. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Baker v.

Adventist Health, Inc., 260 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 2001). The

Court intends to dismiss Count II without prejudice within 20

days.

Any party who wishes to be heard on this issue should file

any authorities to show cause if any there is why this case

should not be dismissed, within ten days following date of

electronic service of this decision.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 22, 2005. 

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05330-OWW Document 49 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 3