Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00642-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This is an employment discrimination case that was removed from the Merced County 

Superior Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiff’s sixth cause of 

action alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 79-90. 

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint and motion to remand. 

See Doc. No. 6. Citing Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff requested permission to amend his complaint by 

deleting the sixth cause of action. See id. With the deletion of the sixth cause of action, Plaintiff 

then requested that this case be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because no other basis for 

federal subject matter jurisdiction existed. See id. Hearing on this motion is set for July 18, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation. See Doc. No. 11. The parties stipulate to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action with prejudice, dismiss Defendant Tyna Lamison with 

prejudice, and that the case should be remanded to the Merced County- Superior Court. See id. 

The stipulation is signed by counsel for all parties. See id. 

The Court will give effect to the parties’ stipulation.

MICHAEL TEATER,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF ATWATER, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-0642 AWI SKO 

ORDER VACATING JULY 18, 2016 

HEARING, ORDER ON PARTIES’ 

STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND, AND ORDER 

REMANDING MATTER TO THE 

MERCED COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. Nos. 6, 11 )

Case 1:16-cv-00642-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/05/16 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

First, pursuant to the stipulation for dismissal with prejudice and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41, Defendant Tyna Lamison was automatically dismissed from this case with the filing 

of the stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 

356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Tyna 

Lamison is no longer a party. See id. The Court will order the docket to reflect this automatic 

dismissal.

Second, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action will be 

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Rule 15(a) motion to amend will be granted in order to 

reflect the dismissal of the sixth cause of action.

Third, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). With the dismissal with prejudice of the sixth cause of 

action, there are no claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction. The Court will not 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See id.; Religious Tech. 

Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992). Instead, in accord with the parties’ 

stipulation, the Court will remand this case to the Merced County Superior Court. See Harrell v. 

20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“. . . it is generally preferable for a 

district to remand remaining pendent claims to state court.”); Dean v. City of Fresno, 546 

F.Supp.2d 798, 821 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) and the stipulated dismissal with prejudice of Defendant 

Tyna Lamison, the Clerk shall change the docket to reflect that Defendant Tyna Lamison 

was TERMINATED from this case as of June 30, 2016;

2. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED, but only to reflect 

that the sixth cause of action has been dismissed with prejudice; 

Case 1:16-cv-00642-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/05/16 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

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims; and

4. The Clerk shall REMAND this matter forthwith to the Merced County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00642-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3