Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

C.D. California

Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

DecidedApril 22, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-03220

StatusUnknown

This text of Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-3220 PA (JCx) Date April 22, 2024 Title Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Marea Woolrich Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Phoenix Thottam (video) Gregory Nylen (video) Kamran Khakbaz (video) Austinn Kenney (tel) Proceedings: STATUS CONFERENCE by ZOOM

Cause called. Appearances made. Court and counsel confer concerning the Notice of Removal filed by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”). Plaintiff Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam (‘Plaintiff’) voluntarily dismissed his federal claim alleging a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(Q). While the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Here, Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’! Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are remaining.”). The Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24STCV09768. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docket No. 6) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. LS Initials of Preparer kss

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-3220 PA (JCx) Date April 22, 2024 Title Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Marea Woolrich Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Phoenix Thottam (video) Gregory Nylen (video) Kamran Khakbaz (video) Austinn Kenney (tel) Proceedings: STATUS CONFERENCE by ZOOM

Cause called. Appearances made. Court and counsel confer concerning the Notice of Removal filed by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”). Plaintiff Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam (‘Plaintiff’) voluntarily dismissed his federal claim alleging a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(Q). While the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Here, Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’! Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003); Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are remaining.”). The Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24STCV09768. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Docket No. 6) as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. LS Initials of Preparer kss

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Law Offices of Phoenix Thottam v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-offices-of-phoenix-thottam-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-national-association-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack