Doscher v. Kroger Co

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedSeptember 3, 2024
Docket3:21-cv-05255
StatusUnknown

This text of Doscher v. Kroger Co (Doscher v. Kroger Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doscher v. Kroger Co, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 CHRISTIAN DOSCHER, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05255-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING TO RETAIN v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 13 KROGER CO. et al., OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 Defendants. 15

17 This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order in Doscher v. Kroger 18 Co., et al., No. 23-35229 (9th Cir. July 10, 2024), and this Court’s previous Order on 19 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Order”) (Dkt. Nos. 39 (Order), 28 (Motion to Dismiss)). 20 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s Order dismissing Mr. Doscher’s federal causes of 21 action for failure to state a claim. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Court’s 22 dismissal of Mr. Doscher’s Washington state law claims. See Dkt. No. 46 at 4. In its order, the 23 Ninth Circuit noted that “[w]hile a district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental 24 1 || jurisdiction’ over remaining state law claims,’” the Court did not indicate that it was exercising 2 || the discretion.. /d. 3 Where, as here, a district court’s original jurisdiction over a plaintiffs federal claims 4 || afford supplemental jurisdiction to decide related state law claims, and the district court 5 || subsequently dismisses the federal claims, “[t]he decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is 6 || within the discretion of the district court and that court must be given an opportunity to make 7 || that decision.” Pell v. Nufiez, 99 F.4th 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Fang v. United States, 8 || 140 F.3d 1238, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original)). The Court declines to exercise 9 || supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Doscher’s remaining state law claims here. 10 Accordingly, Mr. Doscher’s state law claims for violations of the Washington Law 11 || Against Discrimination in Counts 2-3, 8, 10, and 12 (Dkt. No. 12 fj 74-87, 139, 145, 149-52) 12 || and in Count 16 for negligence (id. {| 173-78) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 13 Dated this 3rd day of September 2024. 4 AA Be 15 Tana Lin 16 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fang ex rel. Fang v. United States
140 F.3d 1238 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Doscher v. Kroger Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doscher-v-kroger-co-wawd-2024.