Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01194-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEL HERNANDEZ, BRENDA KAY

PRINCE, JOHN M. ROSS, EDWARD

SIMS, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YUBA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT, ALBERT ALT,

CHRISTOPHER WILKINSON, et al.,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-06-1171 DFL GGH

CIV-S-06-1193 DFL GGH

CIV-S-06-1194 DFL GGH

CIV-S-06-1185 DFL GGH

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss all of plaintiffs’

claims. Plaintiffs acquiesce to dismissal of their federal

claims, and seek remand of their state-law claims to state court. 

Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ motions for remand and move to

dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims. For the reasons stated below,

the court GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ §§

1983 and 1985 claims WITH PREJUDICE. Without reaching

defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ state-law claims, the

court REMANDS those claims to state court.

Case 2:06-cv-01194-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

-2-

I. 

In April 2006, four former Yuba Community College District

(“District”) employees sued the District, the police chief, and

other District officials in California Superior Court for

employment discrimination. Mel Hernandez (“Hernandez”), a former

campus police officer, sued for race and age discrimination under

the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, violation of

public policy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress, violation of U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and defamation

and slander. Edward Sims, Jr. (“Sims”), also a former campus

police officer, brought nearly identical claims for race

discrimination. Brenda Kay Prince (“Prince”), a former custodian

for the District, brought similar age and gender discrimination

claims. Finally, John M. Ross (“Ross”), a retired campus police

officer, brought similar claims for race and age discrimination. 

All four plaintiffs have the same lawyer.

Defendants timely filed notices of removal based on federal

question jurisdiction on June 1, 2006. (Id. ¶ 2.) This court

issued an order relating the four plaintiffs’ cases on June 8,

2006, the same day defendants filed the pending motions to

dismiss. 

On June 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed documents entitled

“Stipulation for Dismissal of the 6th and 7th Causes of Action

[the §§ 1983 and 1985 claims], and to Remand to State Court.” 

The documents “stipulate” to dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal

claims and assert that “said Stipulation and Dismissal removes

Case 2:06-cv-01194-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

-3-

the basis for Federal jurisdiction.” (E.g., Hernandez Stip. for

Dismissal at 1.) The same day, defendants filed objections to

plaintiffs’ stipulations, stating that they never agreed to any

stipulations, that plaintiffs cannot deprive this court of

jurisdiction by dismissing their federal claims after removal,

and that plaintiffs’ stipulations are an attempt to “avoid an

adverse ruling on [d]efendants’ motion[s] to dismiss.” (Obj. to

Stip. at 1-2.) 

II. 

As defendants point out, plaintiffs’ “stipulations” 

are not really stipulations, because defendants never agreed to

them. (Obj. to Stip. at 1.) Rather, they are properly viewed as

statements of nonopposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss

plaintiffs’ federal claims. 

Because they are unopposed, the court grants defendants’

motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ §§ 1983 and 1985 claims. The

claims are dismissed with prejudice. See Otto v. Blue Shield of

Cal., No. C-96-4079-VRW, 1997 WL 16303, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan 10,

1997) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice because

“[plaintiff] has made a tactical decision to abandon [her

federal] claim in favor of a preferable forum; she has that

option, but she is not entitled to force the defendants to repeat

the removal process.”).

Given dismissal of the federal claims, plaintiffs move for

remand of their remaining state-law claims. “It is well settled

that a federal court does have the power to hear claims that

Case 2:06-cv-01194-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

-4-

would not be independently removable even after the basis for

removal jurisdiction is dropped from the proceedings.” Harrell

v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless,

a federal court may dismiss or remand pendent state-law claims if

all federal claims have dropped out of the case and the court

concludes that retaining jurisdiction would be inappropriate. 

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988); see

Harrell, 934 F.2d at 205 (noting that district court has

discretion to keep or remand state-law claims). Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c), remand of the remaining state law claims is

appropriate given that the “court has dismissed all claims over

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

Moreover, contrary to a suggestion by defendants’, plaintiffs’

conduct does not constitute unfair forum manipulation any more

than defendants’ decision to remove the cases.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01194-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

-5-

III.

Plaintiffs’ §§ 1983 and 1985 claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. Their remaining claims are REMANDED to state court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/14/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01194-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 09/15/06 Page 5 of 5