RAMIREZ v. GONZALEZ

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _________________________________________

LUIS RAMIREZ, : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 5:19-cv-5519 : LILLIE GONZALEZ, : Defendant. : _________________________________________

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2020, upon consideration of this Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ECF No. 11, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Gonzalez’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED. 2. The matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The claim is dismissed without prejudice to be filed in state court.1 3. Ramirez’s motion for entry to default, ECF No, 12, is DENIED as moot.2 4. The matter is CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.___________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

1 “The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a) . . . shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). 2 The Court understands Gonzalez’s motion was untimely. However, defaults are disfavored, see Harad v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 839 F.2d 979, 982 (3d Cir. 1988) (“[T]his Court has adopted a policy disfavoring default judgments and encouraging decisions on the merits”).