Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03276/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03276-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03276-HSG 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

The Court ruled on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on September 14, 2015. 

Dkt. No. 112. That ruling dismissed many of Plaintiff’s claims, leaving only one federal claim for 

trial. The next day, Defendant Crescini appealed the denial of summary judgment as to that sole

remaining federal claim. Dkt. No. 114.

On October 6, 2015, the parties filed a joint dismissal agreement in the Ninth Circuit under 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). A.C. v. Nathan Crescini, Case No. 15-16862 (9th Cir.,

Oct. 6, 2015), Dkt. No. 5. On October 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals construed the joint 

dismissal agreement as a joint motion to dismiss the appeal and granted the motion. Id. at Dkt. 

No. 6. The same day, the parties filed a joint stipulation in this Court requesting dismissal of the

remaining Section 1983 claim with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Dkt. 

No. 134.

 Under the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005), the Court construes the parties’ joint stipulation as a stipulation

to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). So construed, the Court 

GRANTS the parties’ stipulation to amend the Complaint to dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s 

First Cause of Action against Defendant Nathan Crescini for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 

As a result of this amendment, all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims arise solely under 

Case 4:13-cv-03276-HSG Document 135 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

California law. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has 

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Sanford v. 

MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n the usual case in which all federallaw claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent 

jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward 

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Sanford, 625 F.3d at 561 

(citations omitted). 

Because all of Plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to assert 

supplemental jurisdiction over his pendent state law claims and dismisses those claims without 

prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Santos v. L.A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 200 

Fed. Appx. 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that district court acted within its discretion in 

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims after granting 

motion to dismiss all federal claims).

The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-03276-HSG Document 135 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 2