Owens v. King County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 TANNER OWENS, an individual, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00453-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13 KING COUNTY, PATTI COLE- 14 TINDALL, and JESSE ANDERSON in their individual and official capacity, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Status Report (“JSR”). Dkt. No. 31. 19 On December 4, 2024, the Court dismissed all but one of the claims in Plaintiff’s Second 20 Amended Complaint with leave to amend most of the claims. Dkt. No. 28. In the JSR, the Parties 21 report that they “have agreed that Plaintiff will not file a Third Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 22 No. 31 at 1. Thus, the only remaining claim in this matter is a state law claim of race 23 discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. See Dkt. No. 21 ¶¶ 56–57. 24 All federal claims have been dismissed. 1 “When a district court ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,’ it 2 ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ over remaining state law claims.” Pell v. 3 Nuñez, 90 F.4th 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Although the 4 Parties “stipulate their approval of” the Court retaining the case (Dkt. No. 31 at 1), the Court

5 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. 6 Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1 7 Dated this 7th day of January 2025. 8 A 9 Tana Lin United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 The Parties refer to the Court’s “discretion to remand the case” (Dkt. No. 31 at 1), but the case cannot be remanded 24 because it was not removed from state court. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1447.