Olfati v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

STEVEN MARK KAMP (SBN 116817) STEVEN KAMP LAW OFFICE 22 Petrilli Circle, Sacramento, CA 95822 Electronic Mail Address: steve.kamp@comcast.net Telephone: (916) 501-1791 (cellular, voice/text) Attorney for Plaintiff MS. PARVIN OLFATI PORTER SCOTT, A Professional Corporation Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 cfessenden@porterscott.com Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 smastorakos@porterscott.com 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL.: 916.929.1481 FAX.: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, PAMELA PISANI, JENNIFER REIMAN, JENNIFER STEWART, and SHERIFF’S SERGEANT RONALD BRIGGS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. PARVIN OLFATI, Case No.: 2:22-CV-01127-JDP Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO SEVER AND REMAND vs. MANDATE/TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE FIRST AMENDED COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. COMPLAINT TO STATE COURT; ORDER Defendants.

Plaintiff PARVIN OLFATI (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, PAMELA PISANI, JENNIFER REIMAN, JENNIFER STEWART, and RONALD BRIGGS, 1 hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate in the First 1 The individual County employees named as Defendants in the FAC are not named as Defendants in the Writ of Mandate twelfth cause of action. Amended Complaint2, originally filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, Court Case No. 34- 2021-00310164, may be severed from the action and remanded to state court. Good cause exists to sever and remand the Writ of Mandate. Defendants removed this case based on the federal question under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims which arise out of a shared common nucleus of operative facts. The parties stipulate and recognize, however, that the Writ of Mandate asserted under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 as the Twelfth “cause of action” does not share those same common nucleus of operative facts. Moreover, the application and interpretation of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) in California Government Code Sections 6250 through 6276.50 is a complex issues of state law. Good cause also exists insofar as courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over writs of mandate asserted under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. Wynn v. Hedgpeth, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6548, *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2012) (“a writ of mandate is exclusively a state law remedy, and district courts routinely deny supplemental jurisdiction over claims seeking a writ of mandate under section 1085”); Wilridge v. Kernan, 2018 WL 2431634, *4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018); San Francisco Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 142 F. Supp. 3d 910, 917 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Thus, recognizing that Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate in the First Amended Complaint meets the definition of a 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 subdivision ( c)(1)(B) “claim not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court”, and seeking to avoid motion practice, stipulate and agree that it may be severed and remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441, subdivision (c)(2). 2 First Amended complaint, pages 64: 24 through 72: 16 and 75:1 through 115:28 ] To the extent required under 28 U.S.C. Section 636, subdivision (c) (1) and Eastern Distri of California Local Rule 301, the parties agree and consent to the disposition of this issue by United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: July 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Steven M. Kamp Attorney for Plaintiff Ms. Parvin Olfati PORTER SCOTT PC By:/s/ Carl L. Fessenden (as authorized on Jul 27, 2022) Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento, Pamela Pisani, Jennifer Reiman, Jennifer Stewart and Sheriff's Sergeant Ronal« Briggs ORDER Good cause appearing, the court severs Plaintiff's Twelfth cause of action for Writ of Mandate and remands same back to state court. DATED: August 18, 2022. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

{02764377.DOCX}3