Bonta, LLC v. City of Marysville

Opinion

1 AT SEATTLE 4 ) 5 || BONTA, LLC, ) ) CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01544-BJR 6 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 7 V. ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) 8 || CITY OF MARYSVILLE, a municipal ) corporation, ) 9 ) Defendants, of 11 13 Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration brought by Plaintiff Bonta, LLC. Dkt. 14 || No. 42. On November 14, 2019, this Court granted Defendant City of Marysville’s motion for 15 summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs federal constitutional claims. Dkt. No. 40 at 5-13. 16 In its Order, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law 17 claims against Defendant and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Jd. at 13-14. 18 19 In its motion, Plaintiff does not ask the Court to reconsider dismissal of its federal claims, 20 || but requests that the Court remand Plaintiffs state law claims to the state court from which this 21 ||case was removed. Dkt. No. 42 at 1-2. The parties dispute the extent to which failure to remand 22 || raises a statute of limitations problem. 23 While it is true that motions for reconsideration are disfavored, Local Rules W.D. Wash. 24 LCR 7(h)(1), the choice to remand pendent state law claims is within the District Court’s 25

discretion, see Carnegie—Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988); see also Harrell v.

7 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991); Koontz Coal. v. City of Seattle, No. 14- 3 || 0218, 2014 WL 5384434, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 20, 2014) (“The decision whether to remand to 4 || state court is in the court's discretion”). 5 Upon reconsideration, the Court determines that remand is appropriate given that this matter originated in state court. As such, the Court hereby GRANTS Bonta’s motion for reconsideration and REMANDS Plaintiff’s state law claims to the Snohomish County Superior

9 Court. 10 ft _ 11 DATED this_ [FJ day of Demwenpies , 2019. 12 /) BARBARA tah pect 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 □