Rios v. Pinnacle Mira Mesa L.P.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss as moot because the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that dropped the federal ADA claim. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss denied as moot“Accordingly, the pending motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court The plaintiff filed an amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) before opposing the motion. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, filing an amended complaint renders a pending motion to dismiss the original complaint moot. |
Supplemental jurisdiction declined and case remanded to state court“Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) but exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline it because all federal claims were dropped and the case was at the pleading stage. This is a standard application of the discretionary factors for remand. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the procedural rule that an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss. It accurately analyzes the jurisdictional landscape, acknowledging that supplemental jurisdiction exists under § 1367(a) but is discretionary under § 1367(c)(3). The court cites the correct statutory factors (all federal claims dismissed, pleading stage) to support its decision to remand. The reasoning is complete and legally sound.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARY RIOS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00333-L-LL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 DISMISS AS MOOT AND 13 v. R CE OM URA TN DING ACTION TO STATE 14 PINNACLE MIRA MESA L.P., (Doc. no. 9)
15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 18 complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 19 (Doc. no. 9.) In lieu of filing an opposition, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as 20 of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Docs. no. 11, 12.) 21 Accordingly, the pending motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. See Ramirez v. 22 County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 23 In her amended complaint Plaintiff chose not to reallege her federal cause of 24 action. (See docs. no. 12, 13.) Defendant had removed this case from State court 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331 because the complaint contained a federal 26 claim alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et 27 seq. (“ADA”). (See doc. nos. 1 (notice of removal) and 1-2 (compl.).) This claim is 28 / / / / / 1 no longer a part of Plaintiff’s complaint. The only remaining claims are alleged 2 under California law. (See doc. no. 12 (first am. compl.).) 3 “[C]onsiderations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants 4 support a wide-ranging power in the federal courts to decide state-law claims in 5 cases that also present federal questions.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 6 343, 349 (1988) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 7 (1966)). At the time of removal, the Court had federal subject matter jurisdiction 8 over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and “supplemental jurisdiction 9 over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original 10 jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of 11 the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff’s state law claims 12 share a common nucleus of operative facts with the dismissed ADA claim, and her 13 state and federal claims would normally be resolved in the same judicial proceeding. 14 See Trustees of the Constr. Indus. and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert 15 Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, 16 the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 18 However, a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 19 over a claim under subsection (a) if [it] has dismissed all claims over which it has 20 original jurisdiction . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Plaintiff chose not to 21 reallege her only federal claim, has alleged no valid basis for federal jurisdiction, and 22 this case is at the pleading stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 23 / / / / / 24 25 26 27 28 1 jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the 2 || State of California, County of San Diego. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ||Dated: April 20, 2021 H . James Lorenz 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Cace No 2-91-cv-00232-] -TT.