Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00921/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00921-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

- 1 - 07cv921 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL KAYE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv921 WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN

DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC LAW

LIBRARY, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to

Specifically Remand all Unadjudicated Pendent Claims to State Court (Doc. # 66). 

Background

On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. # 1) in the Superior Court of 

California against the San Diego County Law Library, the Board of Trustees, Robert Riger,

individually and in his official capacity as Director of the Law Library, and Joan Allen-Hart,

individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Director of the Law Library (collectively

“Defendants”). Notice of Removal, p. 1-2. On May 22, 2007, Defendants removed the

Complaint to this Court. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Defendants

terminated Plaintiff without providing a pre-termination or post-termination evidentiary

hearing, in violation of his procedural due process rights as protected by the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and in violation of the California

Case 3:07-cv-00921-WQH-WMC Document 70 Filed 10/21/08 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 - 07cv921 WQH (WMc)

Constitution and the California Labor Code, (2) Defendants did not permit Plaintiff to inspect

his personnel file, in violation of his due process rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution, and in violation the California Constitution and

the California Labor Code, (3) the library administration, instead of the Board of Trustees,

terminated Plaintiff, in violation of section 6345 of the California Business and Professions

Code, (4) Defendants failed to comply with the notice and open session requirements

governing public employee disciplinary proceedings, in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act,

section 54957 of the California Government Code, (5) Defendants terminated Plaintiff based

on his protected public employee speech, in violation of Article I, section 2(a) of the California

Constitution, and (6) Defendants did not honor the whistle blower protections of the California

False Claims Act, section 12653 of the California Government Code. 

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial remand (Doc. # 7). On December

11, 2007, the Court remanded the Complaint’s third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action to

state court (Doc. # 24). The Court retained jurisdiction over the Complaint’s first and second

causes of action.

On April 1, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Docs. # 26, 27).

On June 10, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiff

on the federal claims in the Complaint’s first and second causes of action, and declined to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Complaint’s first and second

causes of action (Doc. # 62). On June 11, 2008, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment and

closed the case (Doc. # 63). The case remains closed. 

On June 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment.

Plaintiff states:

The court’s order and judgment of June 10, 2008, make no specific disposition

of the unadjudicated state law issues. Although the court clearly declined to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those issues, it did not dismiss them with

prejudice. It did not dismiss them without prejudice. And it did not remand

those claims to state court. The practical effect of the court’s order and

judgment has been to bottle up the unadjudicated state claims in a procedural

and jurisdictional limbo which if not corrected, will prevent their resolution

forever. 

By filing to expressly terminate and relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-00921-WQH-WMC Document 70 Filed 10/21/08 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 - 07cv921 WQH (WMc)

residual state law claims, the court has (perhaps inadvertently) retained them in

perpetuity under federal jurisdiction while refusing to decide them.

Mot. to Alter Judgment, p. 2-3. Plaintiff requests that the Court alter or amend the judgment

under either Rule 59(e) or 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to dispose of

plaintiff’s unadjudicated pendent state claims by remanding them to the San Diego Superior

Court.” Id. at 10. 

On July 14, 2008, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or

Amend the Judgment (Doc. # 69). Defendants contend that there is no reason to amend or alter

the judgment because the Court “has dismissed the state claims by operation of its Judgment.”

Opposition, p. 3. 

Ruling of the Court

Plaintiff contends that the Court has retained jurisdiction “in perpetuity” over Plaintiff’s

residual state claims by failing to expressly relinquish jurisdiction. Mot. to Alter Judgment,

p. 3. However, on June 10, 2008, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims. On June 11, 2008, the

Clerk of the Court entered judgment in this action. The case was closed and remains closed.

The Court has not retained jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s claims. In light of the foregoing,

the Court denies the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to

Specifically Remand all Unadjudicated Pendent Claims to State Court (Doc. # 66) is DENIED.

DATED: October 21, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00921-WQH-WMC Document 70 Filed 10/21/08 Page 3 of 3