Thomas v. The Regents of the University of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RENEE THOMAS, Case No. 19-cv-06463-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND; 9 Vv. AMENDING PRIOR ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT DISMISSAL OF 10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY STATE LAW CLAIMS IS WITHOUT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PREJUDICE Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 53 a 12

13 Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment is scheduled for a hearing on September

v 14 11, 2020. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate

15 || for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 16 Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal of her state law claims with

= 17 || prejudice, and she asks that instead the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction to allow her to 2 18 pursue those claims in state court. Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that her state law claims raise issues 19 || separate from her Title IX claims, such as the “special relationship” doctrine as it relates to her claim 20 || for breach of fiduciary duty. 21 The Court has discretion to grant plaintiff's motion. See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 22 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999); Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). After 23 || consideration of plaintiff's arguments, the Court finds that is in the interest of fairness and comity 24 || to amend the prior order and judgment and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 25 || claims. The Court will enter an amended judgment in accordance with this order. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sate MU tee 27 Dated: September 2, 2020 SUSAN ILLSTON 28 United States District Judge