Decker v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

A. Alexander Gorman, Esq. (SBN 158719) GORMAN LAW OFFICE Pavilions Professional Center Suite 200, 641 Fulton Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-1405 Alex@Gorman.Law

Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER BRIAN R. DECKER, Case 2:24-cv-00021-DJC-AC Plaintiff, v. STIPULATION AND ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; REMANDING THIS CASE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S BACK TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE; SCOTT R. JONES; FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DISTRICT; ROBERT DUGGAN; CITY OF Complaint filed: 11/04/2021 RANCHO CORDOVA; CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRANDON M. LUKE; GEORGE PARSONS; AND JEFF COUCH Defendants. WHEREAS, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER (“Plaintiff’), Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (also sued as “SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE”), SCOTT R. JONES, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ROBERT DUGGAN, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA (also sued as “CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT”), BRANDON M. LUKE, GEORGE PARSONS, AND JEFF COUCH (“Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants will be collectively referred to as “Parties”) have been meeting and conferring regarding Plaintiff’s potential Motion to Remand. WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830 containing seven state law causes of action and a single federal cause of action for a violation of 42 USC §1983. WHEREAS, on January 4, 2024, Defendant CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA filed a Notice of Removal to this Court from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento based on the single federal cause of action for a violation of 42 USC §1983 which conferred original jurisdiction upon this court. WHEREAS, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 11, 2024 in which he did not reassert his federal claims that gave this honorable Court original jurisdiction over this action. His Second Amended Complaint now contains only state law claims subject to this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel has previously provided to all counsel for the Defendants case authorities supportive of a Motion to Remand the case back to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Once federal claims that formed the basis of federal question jurisdiction are dismissed, the court has discretion to retain, remand, or dismiss the supplemental state law claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). If the federal questions are eliminated relatively soon after removal, absent evidence of bad faith, remanding the case to state court rather than dismissal is ordinarily preferred. Id.; see also Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 939 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining federal courts should ordinarily decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of jurisdiction conferring claims, but dismissal is not mandatory). The discretionary remand decision depends upon what “will best accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. . . .” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 351 (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)). When the balance of these factors indicates a case properly belongs in state court, the federal court should decline jurisdiction. Id. Moreover, absent evidence of bad faith, a plaintiff’s decision to move to a state forum is permissible. Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 490-91 (9th Cir. 1995). See also Barnes v. Cnty. of Placer, 654 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (stating that “primary responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts”), aff’d on other grounds, 386 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2010). WHEREAS, all parties have agreed to Stipulate to an Order of this Court Remanding the case back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel: 1. That there is good cause for this case to be Remanded back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, in County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021- 00310830 and the parties agree thereto.

Dated: 4/17/2024 GORMAN LAW OFFICE, LTD

By: /s/ A. Alexander Gorman A. Alexander Gorman Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER

Dated: 4/17/2024 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By: /s/ Alison J. Southard William E. Camy Alison J. Southard Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA BRANDON M. LUKE and JEFF COUCH

Dated: 4/17/2024 RIVERA HEWITT PAUL, LLP

By: /s/ Jonathan B. Paul Jonathan B. Paul Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S OFFICE and SCOTT JONES

Dated: 4/17/2024 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP

By: /s/ Jeffrey Schultz Jeffrey Schultz John Poulos Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT and ROBERT DUGGAN

Having reviewed the STIPULATION among the Parties and finding good cause therefore, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The above captioned matter is hereby Remanded back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

Dated: April 18, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE