Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01033/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01033-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15-cv-1033-L(RBB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY GONZALES et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-1033-L(RBB)

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

This action against the City of San Diego for excessive force was removed from 

state court based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal 

question was raised by Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their 

Fourth Amendment rights. The Court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a) over related state law tort claims.

The action has been pending in this Court without any motion practice since the 

filing of the amended complaint on August 31, 2015 until it was set for a final pretrial 

conference. According to the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order, Plaintiffs abandoned their 

sole federal claim and intended to proceed only on their state law tort claims. (Pl.'s Reply 

to Def.'s Resp. to OSC (doc. no. 40) at 1.) In the absence of any remaining basis for 

federal jurisdiction, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not 

be remanded to state court. Defendant responded, arguing remand would be contrary to 

Case 3:15-cv-01033-L-RBB Document 42 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-1033-L(RBB)

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

judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. Plaintiffs counter that remand 

is appropriate.

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). 

The Court is not obligated to continue to exercise its jurisdiction when the basis for 

original jurisdiction is no longer present. Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). "While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 

1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values of economy, convenience, fairness, and 

comity." Id. at 1001 (referring to United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); 

internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) "[I]n the usual case in which all federallaw claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward 

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon 

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (quoted in Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). 

The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that remand would be contrary to 

judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties. With the exception of an 

unopposed motion to dismiss more than three years ago, which culminated in the

voluntary filing of the operative amended complaint, there has been no motion practice. 

The discovery cut-off date was repeatedly extended during a series of settlement 

conferences held before the Magistrate Judge. In the absence of any motion practice, this

Court is unfamiliar with the case. Aside from settlement conferences, the parties did 

hardly anything to avail themselves of this Court so far. Judicial economy and fairness 

therefore do not favor retaining jurisdiction. As stated in Carnegie-Mellon, comity

counsels against it. In light of the foregoing, Defendant's proposition that it would be 

more convenient to try the case in this Court is not persuasive.

/ / / / /

Case 3:15-cv-01033-L-RBB Document 42 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-1033-L(RBB)

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

The action is therefore remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, 

County of San Diego, Central Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01033-L-RBB Document 42 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3