Olfati v. County of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 STEVEN MARK KAMP (SBN 116817) STEVEN KAMP LAW OFFICE 2 22 Petrilli Circle, Sacramento, CA 95822 Electronic Mail Address: steve.kamp@comcast.net 3 Telephone: (916) 501-1791 (cellular, voice/text) Attorney for Plaintiff MS. PARVIN OLFATI 4 PORTER SCOTT, A Professional Corporation 5 Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 cfessenden@porterscott.com 6 Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 smastorakos@porterscott.com 7 350 University Ave., Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95825 8 TEL.: 916.929.1481 FAX.: 916.927.3706 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, PAMELA PISANI, JENNIFER REIMAN, JENNIFER STEWART, and SHERIFF’S SERGEANT RONALD BRIGGS 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 Ms. PARVIN OLFATI, Case No.: 2:22-CV-01127-JDP 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO SEVER AND REMAND 16 PLAINTIFF’S WRIT OF vs. MANDATE/TWELFTH CAUSE OF 17 ACTION IN THE FIRST AMENDED COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. COMPLAINT TO STATE COURT; ORDER 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff PARVIN OLFATI (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 22 PAMELA PISANI, JENNIFER REIMAN, JENNIFER STEWART, and RONALD BRIGGS, 1 23 hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate in the First 24 25 26 27 1 The individual County employees named as Defendants in the FAC are not named as Defendants in the Writ of Mandate twelfth cause of action. 1 Amended Complaint2, originally filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, Court Case No. 34- 2 2021-00310164, may be severed from the action and remanded to state court. 3 Good cause exists to sever and remand the Writ of Mandate. Defendants removed this case 4 based on the federal question under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims which arise out of a shared common nucleus of operative 6 facts. 7 The parties stipulate and recognize, however, that the Writ of Mandate asserted under Cal. 8 Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 as the Twelfth “cause of action” does not share those same common nucleus 9 of operative facts. Moreover, the application and interpretation of the California Public Records 10 Act (CPRA) in California Government Code Sections 6250 through 6276.50 is a complex issues of 11 state law. 12 Good cause also exists insofar as courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 13 writs of mandate asserted under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. Wynn v. Hedgpeth, 2012 U.S. Dist. 14 LEXIS 6548, *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2012) (“a writ of mandate is exclusively a state law remedy, 15 and district courts routinely deny supplemental jurisdiction over claims seeking a writ of mandate under 16 section 1085”); Wilridge v. Kernan, 2018 WL 2431634, *4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018); San Francisco 17 Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 142 F. Supp. 3d 910, 917 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 18 19 Thus, recognizing that Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate in the First 20 Amended Complaint meets the definition of a 28 U.S.C. Section 1441 subdivision ( c)(1)(B) “claim 21 not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court”, and seeking to avoid 22 motion practice, stipulate and agree that it may be severed and remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 Section 1441, subdivision (c)(2). 24 25 26 27 2 First Amended complaint, pages 64: 24 through 72: 16 and 75:1 through 115:28 ] To the extent required under 28 U.S.C. Section 636, subdivision (c) (1) and Eastern Distri 2 || of California Local Rule 301, the parties agree and consent to the disposition of this issue by 3 || United States Magistrate Judge. 4 5 || DATED: July 27, 2022 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 By: /s/ Steven M. Kamp 8 Attorney for Plaintiff Ms. Parvin Olfati 9 10 PORTER SCOTT PC 11 By:/s/ Carl L. Fessenden (as authorized on Jul 27, 2022) 12 Attorneys for Defendants County of 13 Sacramento, Pamela Pisani, Jennifer Reiman, Jennifer Stewart and Sheriff's Sergeant Ronal« 14 Briggs 15 ORDER 16 17 Good cause appearing, the court severs Plaintiff's Twelfth cause of action for Writ of 18 || Mandate and remands same back to state court. 19 DATED: August 18, 2022. 20 21 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 {02764377.DOCX}3