Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03147/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03147-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marilyn Moomau
Defendant
SBC Communications, Inc.
Defendant
Stephen Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and

MARILYN MOOMAU,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-3147 MMC

ORDER DECLINING TO RETAIN

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER

REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS AND

REMANDING ACTION

The above-titled action was removed to federal court on August 3, 2005 on the basis

of federal question jurisdiction. The notice of removal contains no allegation of diversity

jurisdiction and, indeed, the complaint alleges that both plaintiff and defendant Marilyn

Moomau are residents of San Francisco. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 6.) 

On September 2, 2005, the parties electronically filed a stipulation of dismissal of the

two federal causes of action, noting that the stipulation was “without prejudice to the right

by Defendants SBC Communications, Inc. and Marilyn Moomau to oppose any Motion for

Remand by Plaintiff.” (See Stipulation of Dismissal at 2.) On the same date, the parties

electronically filed a separate stipulation extending the time for plaintiff to file a motion for

remand. The action was reassigned to the undersigned on September 20, 2005.

No motion to remand is necessary. As a result of the parties’ stipulation of
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

dismissal, no federal claim remains in the action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3),

where jurisdiction is based on a federal question, the district court may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it

has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “[I]n the usual case in which all

federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under

the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity --

will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” 

Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988).

Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, and hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior

Court for the City and County of San Francisco.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2005 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge