Decker v. County of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 A. Alexander Gorman, Esq. (SBN 158719) GORMAN LAW OFFICE 2 Pavilions Professional Center Suite 200, 641 Fulton Avenue 3 Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: (916) 448-1405 4 Alex@Gorman.Law

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRIAN R. DECKER, Case 2:24-cv-00021-DJC-AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; REMANDING THIS CASE 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S BACK TO THE SUPERIOR COURT 15 OFFICE; SCOTT R. JONES; FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 16 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 17 DISTRICT; ROBERT DUGGAN; CITY OF Complaint filed: 11/04/2021 18 RANCHO CORDOVA; CITY OF RANCHO 19 CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT; 20 BRANDON M. LUKE; GEORGE 21 PARSONS; AND JEFF COUCH 22 Defendants. 23 24 WHEREAS, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER (“Plaintiff’), Defendants COUNTY OF 25 SACRAMENTO (also sued as “SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE”), 26 SCOTT R. JONES, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ROBERT 27 DUGGAN, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA (also sued as “CITY OF RANCHO 28 CORDOVA POLICE DEPARTMENT”), BRANDON M. LUKE, GEORGE PARSONS, 1 AND JEFF COUCH (“Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants will be collectively referred 2 to as “Parties”) have been meeting and conferring regarding Plaintiff’s potential Motion to 3 Remand. 4 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2021, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER filed a Complaint 5 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of 6 Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830 containing seven state law causes of 7 action and a single federal cause of action for a violation of 42 USC §1983. 8 WHEREAS, on January 4, 2024, Defendant CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA filed 9 a Notice of Removal to this Court from the Superior Court of California, County of 10 Sacramento based on the single federal cause of action for a violation of 42 USC §1983 11 which conferred original jurisdiction upon this court. 12 WHEREAS, Plaintiff BRIAN R. DECKER filed a Second Amended Complaint on 13 April 11, 2024 in which he did not reassert his federal claims that gave this honorable 14 Court original jurisdiction over this action. His Second Amended Complaint now contains 15 only state law claims subject to this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. 16 WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel has previously provided to all counsel for the 17 Defendants case authorities supportive of a Motion to Remand the case back to the 18 Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Once federal claims that formed the 19 basis of federal question jurisdiction are dismissed, the court has discretion to retain, 20 remand, or dismiss the supplemental state law claims. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 21 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). If the federal questions are eliminated relatively soon after 22 removal, absent evidence of bad faith, remanding the case to state court rather than 23 dismissal is ordinarily preferred. Id.; see also Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker 24 Int’l, Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 939 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining federal courts should ordinarily 25 decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of jurisdiction conferring claims, but 26 dismissal is not mandatory). The discretionary remand decision depends upon what “will 27 best accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. . . .” 28 Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 351 (citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 1 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)). When the balance of these factors indicates a case properly 2 belongs in state court, the federal court should decline jurisdiction. Id. Moreover, absent 3 evidence of bad faith, a plaintiff’s decision to move to a state forum is permissible. 4 Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 490-91 (9th Cir. 1995). See also Barnes v. 5 Cnty. of Placer, 654 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (stating that “primary 6 responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts”), aff’d on 7 other grounds, 386 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 WHEREAS, all parties have agreed to Stipulate to an Order of this Court 9 Remanding the case back to the Superior Court of California for the County of 10 Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830. 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, by and 2 through their respective undersigned counsel: 3 4 1. That there is good cause for this case to be Remanded back to the 5 Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, in County of 6 Sacramento in Decker v. County of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021- 7 00310830 and the parties agree thereto. 8 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 10

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

12 By: /s/ A. Alexander Gorman 13 A. Alexander Gorman Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 BRIAN R. DECKER 15

17 Dated: 4/17/2024 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 18

19 By: /s/ Alison J. Southard William E. Camy 20 Alison J. Southard 21 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA 22 BRANDON M. LUKE 23 GEORGE PARSONS and JEFF COUCH 24

27 28 1 Dated: 4/17/2024 RIVERA HEWITT PAUL, LLP

2 By: /s/ Jonathan B. Paul 3 Jonathan B. Paul Attorney for Defendants 4 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 5 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 6 and SCOTT JONES 7

9 Dated: 4/17/2024 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 10

11 By: /s/ Jeffrey Schultz Jeffrey Schultz 12 John Poulos 13 Attorneys for Defendants SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL 14 UTILITY DISTRICT 15 and ROBERT DUGGAN 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Having reviewed the STIPULATION among the Parties and finding good cause 3 therefore, it is hereby ordered that: 4 5 1. The above captioned matter is hereby Remanded back to the Superior 6 Court of California for the County of Sacramento in Decker v. County of 7 Sacramento, et al., Case No. 34-2021-00310830. The Clerk of Court shall 8 serve a copy of this order on the Superior Court of California for the County 9 of Sacramento. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: April 18, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28