Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01197/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01197-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEDREK FUNKHOUSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAC FF 91, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01197-MMC 

ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION 

FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 41

Before the Court is a “Joint Stipulation,” filed December 11, 2019, by which the 

parties seek an order dismissing plaintiff’s sole federal claim and directing the remaining 

claims, all of which are alleged under state law, be “removed to the Santa Cruz County 

Superior Court.” (See Joint Stip. at 3:25-26.) By order filed November 7, 2019, the Court 

denied the parties’ previous request for such transfer because the “parties ha[d] not cited 

any authority for such procedure.” (See Doc. No. 40.) 

In the instant stipulation, the parties, citing Herklotz v. Parkinson, 848 F.3d 894 

(9th Cir. 2017), assert there “no longer [is] subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.” 

(See Joint Stip. at 3:20-21.) The pleadings addressed in Herklotz are distinguishable 

from those presented here, see Herklotz, 848 F.3d at 897-98 (holding district court lost 

jurisdiction over state law Crossclaim after defendant “opted to sever” it, thereby creating 

“entirely new and independent case”; distinguishing case in which federal claim is 

dismissed and “pendant [state law] claims remain part of the original action”), and, in any 

event, the parties therein neither sought nor obtained a transfer from federal to state 

court. See id. at 896. 

Case 3:19-cv-01197-MMC Document 42 Filed 12/13/19 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

Consequently, the parties having failed to cite any authority supporting their 

requested relief, and the Court having located none, the Court declines to issue the

proposed order. Nothing herein, however, is intended to preclude plaintiff from 

dismissing his federal claim, seeking thereafter an order dismissing his state law claims 

without prejudice, and then refiling those state law claims in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(c)(3)&(d); see also Artis v. D.C., 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01197-MMC Document 42 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 2