Hodroff v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Matthew HODROFF, Case No.: 25-cv-0041-AGS-JLB Plant | ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 5 || V- STATE COURT 6 || JEPMORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 This Court previously dismissed plaintiff Matthew Hodroff’s sole federal claim and 10 || gave him until June 9, 2025, to amend his complaint. (See ECF 11.) Hodroff has not filed 11 amended complaint, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 12 ||his state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “In the usual case in which all federal-law claims 13 eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent 14 jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point 15 || toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Sanford v. 16 || MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). This case is thus REMANDED to 17 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Central Division, Case 18 || No. 24CL025842C. (See ECF 1, at 14); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 19 || Dated: June 10, 2025

21 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28