Zuniga v. Unforgettable Coatings Inc

Opinion

* * *

JOEL ISMAEL ZUNIGA, Case No. 2:21-CV-1221 JCM (MDC)

Plaintiff(s), ORDER

v.

UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS, INC, et al,

Defendant(s).

Plaintiff brought this class action because of alleged violations of both federal and state law. However, this court dismissed the federal law claims, leaving only the state law claims to be adjudicated. (See ECF No. 38). Jurisdiction over state law claims arises under supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 USC § 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of right. City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the district court has dismissed claims over which it has original jurisdiction. See 28 USC § 1367(c). The decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c) should be informed by the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). District courts have the power to remand cases sua sponte when lacking subject matter jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 979 F.2d 782, 784-785; May v. California Hotel & Casino, Inc., No. 2:13–CV–00066–GMN, 2014 WL 1494231, at *5 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2014) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remanding the case to state court). Because plaintiff has no federal causes of action and the parties are not diverse, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands this action to Nevada state court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court. DATED September 25, 2025.

__________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE