Anthony Christian Pendregon v. City of Huntington Beach

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 27, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) ) Case No.: SACV 21-00708-CJC(DFMx) 13 ANTHONY CHRISTIAN ) PENDREGON, ) 14 ) ) 15 ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO 16 ) ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR v. ) COURT 17 )

) 18 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ) AARON ECSEDY, SANDRA VIDANA, ) 19 ) and DOES 1‒10, ) 20 ) ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) 23 24 On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff Anthony Christian Pendregon filed the instant civil 25 rights action in Orange County Superior Court against Defendants City of Huntington 26 Beach, Aaron Ecsedy, Sandra Vidana, and unnamed Does asserting a number of state law 27 claims and a federal claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 1-1 [Complaint].) 1 posed by Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) On May 11, 2021, 2 Plaintiff amended his Complaint and dropped his § 1983 claim, the sole federal claim, 3 leaving only state law claims. (Dkt. 9 [First Amended Complaint].) Now before the 4 Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remand the case to Orange County Superior 5 Court. (Dkt. 10.) 6 7 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 8 claim, the cause of action on which the Court’s original jurisdiction rested is now gone. 9 See Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). A 10 district court may decline “supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district 11 court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1367(c)(3). “Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its 13 discretion to remand the supplemental state law claims.” Id. at 1209‒10. In exercising 14 this discretion, courts are instructed to consider the factors of “judicial economy, 15 convenience and fairness to litigants.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 16 715, 726 (1966). These factors weigh strongly in favor of remand where all federal 17 claims are dismissed before trial. See Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207‒08, 1210; see also 18 Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 19 (noting that “[t]he factor of comity also weighs strongly in favor of remand” when 20 “plaintiff now proceeds exclusively on his state claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. 21 United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3235999, *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (court 22 declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the case “in the interests of 23 judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” when “the federal claims were 24 eliminated at the pleading phase”). Further, Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s 25 motion, which may be deemed consent to granting the motion. Local Rule 7-12. 26 27 1 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED and the Court REMANDS the 2 to Orange County Superior Court.! 3 4 ef LE 6 DATED: May 27, 2021 . / ( a 7 / 8 CORMAC J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TWh Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 28 || for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.