Samar Abdelghany v. Southern California Edison Company

1 JS-6 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION [11] ) 12 ) ) Case No.: SACV 21-00804-CJC(KESx) 13 SAMAR ABDELGHANY, et al., ) ) 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) 15 ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S v. ) MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO 16 ) ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR ) COURT [Dkt. 16] 17 ) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) 18 COMPANY, et al., ) ) 19 ) ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 ) ) 22 ) [23] 24 On April 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in Orange County Superior 25 Court against Defendants Southern California Edison Company, Edison International, T26 Mobile, USA Inc., and unnamed Does asserting a number of claims relating to a fire 27 purportedly caused by Southern California Edison’s powerlines in October 2020. 1 on a reference to “the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” in Plaintiffs’ 2 Complaint. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal]; see Compl. ¶¶ 34, 43.) On May 14, 2021, 3 Plaintiffs amended their Complaint and removed all references to the Fifth Amendment, 4 leaving only state law claims. (Dkt. 12 [First Amended Complaint].) Now before the 5 Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to Orange County Superior Court. 6 (Dkt. 16.) Plaintiffs assert that their original Complaint mistakenly referenced the Fifth 7 Amendment and that they never intended to pursue any federal claims. (Id. at 2.) [8] 9 Because Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which eliminated their sole federal 10 claim, the cause of action on which the Court’s original jurisdiction rested is now gone. 11 See Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). A 12 district court may decline “supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district 13 court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1367(c)(3). “Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its 15 discretion to remand the supplemental state law claims.” Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 16 1209‒10. In exercising this discretion, courts are instructed to consider the factors of 17 “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” United Mine Workers of Am. 18 v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). These factors weigh strongly in favor of remand 19 where all federal claims are dismissed before trial. See Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 20 1207‒08, 1210; see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110 , 21 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of comity also weighs strongly in favor 22 of remand” when “plaintiff now proceeds exclusively on his state claims”); Bay Area 23 Surgical Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3235999 , *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 24 2012) (court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the case “in the 25 interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” when “the federal 26 claims were eliminated at the pleading phase”). While there is a motion for judgment on 27 the pleadings pending before the Court, this Court has yet to make a substantive ruling in 1 ||, REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court.! Defendants’ motion for 2 ||judgment on the pleadings, (Dkt. 25), is DENIED AS MOOT. [5] 6 DATED: — June 11, 2021 pf , 7 a f¢ 8 CORMAE J. CARNEY 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [26] Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 28 || for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 21, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby vacated and off calendar.