Gary Scherer v. Newport Country Inn and Suites, Inc.

JS-6 l FILED 2 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT [2] 4 Vays CW. psrory [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION [10] i ||GARY SCHERER, Case No.: SACV 21-00653-CJC (DFMx) [12] Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 4 ° SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND SUA SPONTE REMANDING 15 CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY NEWPORT COUNTRY INN AND SUPERIOR COURT 16 || SUITES, INC. and DOES 1-10, [17] 8 Defendant. [22] 23 On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff Gary Scherer filed the instant lawsuit in Orange 24 || County Superior Court against Defendant Newport Country Inn and Suites, Inc., alleging 25 || violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil 26 ||Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1 [Complaint].) Defendant subsequently removed 27 || the case to this Court based on the federal question posed by Plaintiff's ADA claim. 28 ||(Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) l 2 On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint and dropped his ADA claim, the 3 || sole federal claim, leaving only state law claims for violations of the Unruh Act and 4 || California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Dkts. 12-13.) As a result, the Court ordered the 5 || parties to show cause as to why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction 6 the remaining state law claims and remand the case. (Dkt. 14.) [7] 8 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 9 claim, the cause of action on which the Court’s original jurisdiction rested is now gone. 10 || See Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). 11 “Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand 12 supplemental state law claims.” Jd. at 1209-10; see San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of 13 || Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that the Ninth Circuit does not 14 || require “‘any [] explanation for a district court’s reasons when the district court [declines 15 || Jurisdiction] under [§1367(c)(1—-3)]”). In determining whether to remand supplemental 16 || state law claims, courts are generally instructed to consider the factors of “judicial 17 || economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 18 U.S. 715 , 726 (1966). These factors weigh strongly in favor of remand where all 19 || federal claims are dismissed before trial. See Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207-08, 1210 ; 20 || see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 21 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of comity also weighs strongly in favor of remand” when 22 ““plaintiff now proceeds exclusively on his state claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. 23 || United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3235999 , *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (court 24 || declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the case “in the interests of 25 || judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” when “the federal claims were 26 eliminated at the pleading phase”). Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise [28] 1 || supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte REMANDS the case to Orange County 2 || Superior Court.! [3] DATED: May 18, 2021 Ko Lo LL HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [27] 28 ||' Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.