Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02569/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02569-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD COOK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02569 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice his

two remaining claims: a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claim and

a Title VII claim. After carefully considering the parties’ papers, the Court concludes that

oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

The Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s section 1983 due process claim without

leave to amend and by separate order granted defendants summary judgment on plaintiff’s

remaining section 1983 claims. Plaintiff now seeks to dismiss his Title VII and FEHA

claims without prejudice so that he may pursue the FEHA claim in state court. While he

does not wish to pursue his Title VII claim, he is concerned that dismissal of that claim with

prejudice will bar him from proceeding with his FEHA claim.

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice is GRANTED. Defendants are not

prejudiced by this ruling as the proceedings in this Court have focused on the 

Case 3:07-cv-02569-CRB Document 66 Filed 07/21/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\2569\orderreplaintiffdismiss.wpd 2

Section 1983 claim. Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated, and the Ninth Circuit has

often repeated, that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before

trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7

(1988). As plaintiff does not wish to pursue his Title VII claim, a state court should decide

his remaining state law FEHA claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02569-CRB Document 66 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 2