M. D. v. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 M.D., a minor, by and through his guardian No.: 1:20-cv-01525 NONE JLT ad litem, MARCUS DE LOUTH, 12 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO Plaintiffs, DISMISS THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION; 13 ORDER REMANDING THE MATTER TO 14 v. STATE COURT 15 PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION (Doc. No. 5) SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiff M.D., through his guardian ad litem Marcus De Louth, filed this action on 19 September 22, 2020 in the Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-1 (“Complaint”).) 20 Defendants, the Panama-Buena Vista Union School District (“District”) and various employees of 21 the District, timely removed the action to this federal court. (See Doc. No. 1.) The Complaint 22 contains one federal claim (the fourth cause of action) and three state law claims, all related to an 23 incident that allegedly occurred on October 30, 2019 in which plaintiff’s leg was trapped in the 24 door of a school bus. (See generally Doc. No. 1-1.) 25 On November 11, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the federal cause of action. (Doc. 26 No. 5.) On November 19, 2020, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to dismissal of that 27 federal cause of action. (Doc. No. 7.) 28 ///// | The court declines to address the arguments made in the motion in detail and instead 2 summarily DISMISSES the fourth cause of action in the Complaint on the basis that the plaintiff 3 expresses no opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Way v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4 2:16-CV-02244 TLN KJN, 2019 WL 1405599, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (reviewing local > rules and caselaw permitting summary dismissal under similar circumstances). 6 Because this case was removed to this court only recently, no judicial resources have been expended on it. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 US 343, 350 (1988). Consequently, the 8 court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and REMANDS the matter to the Kern County Superior Court. 10 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above: 2 (1) Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED; i (2) The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims; '6 (3) The case is REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court; and "7 (4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ on 20 Dated: _ November 24, 2020 La 1D, ay UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28