Soler v. San Diego, County of
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court was asked to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims following a Ninth Circuit remand. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims had been dismissed, but retained jurisdiction over state claims against defendants with pending federal claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against Defendants Germaine, Medina, Milton, Smith, Turvey, Tarantino, and the San Diego County Office of the Public Defender.“The Court has reconsidered and once again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Germaine, Medina, Milton, Smith, Turvey, and Tarantino, as well as the San Diego County Office of the Public Defender, based on the previous dismissal of all federal claims against these defendants.” | agree with court The decision follows the general rule that when all federal claims against a defendant are dismissed, the balance of factors typically points toward declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims against that defendant. The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and cited relevant authority supporting this outcome. |
Retained supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against Defendants Banuelos, Wilkins, and Hobbs.“The Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims against Defendants Banuelos, Wilkins, and Hobbs, so long as Plaintiff’s federal claims against those three defendants remain pending.” | agree with court The court correctly retained supplemental jurisdiction because federal claims against these specific defendants remained pending, providing a continuing federal nexus for the state claims against them. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the discretionary standard for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It properly distinguishes between defendants against whom all federal claims were dismissed (where jurisdiction is declined) and defendants against whom federal claims remain pending (where jurisdiction is retained). The citations to Carnegie-Mellon and San Pedro Hotel support the conclusion that declining jurisdiction is appropriate when federal claims are eliminated. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural determination.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES SOLER, Case No. 14cv2470-MMA (RBB)
11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL 12 v. JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS 13 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff James Soler brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 20 and California state law, based on his arrest and detention for a thirty-year old crime he 21 did not commit. On February 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished 22 memorandum disposition reversing in part this Court’s previous orders and judgment of 23 dismissal, vacating the judgment accordingly, and remanding the case for further 24 proceedings in accordance with its disposition. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit noted that 25 “[b]ecause the district court dismissed Soler’s federal claims, it declined to exercise 26 supplemental jurisdiction over Soler’s state law claims.” Doc. No. 203 at 10, n.3. The 27 circuit court instructed that “[o]n remand, the district court should reconsider whether to 28 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.” Id. 1 Plaintiff seeks clarification regarding which state law claims remain at issue in this 2 action. Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state 3 law claims “against all of the SDSD Deputy Defendants, the Public Defender’s Office, 4 and attorney Salvatore Tarrantino [sic].” Doc. No. 212 at 2; see also Doc. No. 201 at 2- 5 3.1 6 The Court has reconsidered and once again declines to exercise supplemental 7 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Germaine, Medina, 8 Milton, Smith, Turvey, and Tarantino, as well as the San Diego County Office of the 9 Public Defender, based on the previous dismissal of all federal claims against these 10 defendants.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 11 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which federal-law claims are eliminated 12 before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 13 over the remaining state-law claims.”); Ismail v. Cty. of Orange, 917 F.Supp.2d 1060 14 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 15 against county defendant because all federal claims against that defendant had been 16 dismissed); Zazzali for DBSI Private Actions Tr. v. Alexander Partners, LLC, No. 1:14- 17 CV-00419-RJB, 2015 WL 13640265, at *4 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2015) (declining to exercise 18 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against several defendants because all 19 federal claims against the specific defendants had been dismissed and thus “[t]here is no 20 longer a federal nexus for these defendants.”); San Pedro Hotel Co. Inc., v. City of L.A., 21 159 F.3d 470, 478-79 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding district court need not provide an 22 explanation for dismissal of state claims where it is based on the dismissal of all claims 23 over which the district court has original jurisdiction, or where the state law claim 24 25 1 Citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. 26 2 Plaintiff did not appeal the entry of judgment against him on his Fourth Amendment wrongful arrest 27 claim, or the entry of judgment in favor of Defendants Javier Medina and Mark Milton on his Fourteenth Amendment wrongful detention claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment on Plaintiff’s 28 1 || substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has 2 || original jurisdiction). 3 The Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state 4 claims against Defendants Banuelos, Wilkins, and Hobbs, so long as Plaintiff’s 5 || federal claims against those three defendants remain pending. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || DATE: March 24, 2020 LM. . Wa / VY, - 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28