Marez v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARTHUR MAREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01063-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 13 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPANY, JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case in August 2022, asserting Title VII and 18 state law claims. (ECF No. 1). In September 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to assert only 19 state law claims. (ECF No. 37). In September 2024, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second 20 amended complaint, which motion, if granted, would add another state law claim but no Federal 21 claims. (ECF No. 51). 22 Upon review of the record, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why the Court not 23 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court has “supplemental jurisdiction over all other 25 claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form 26 part of the same case or controversy.” However, “a federal district court with power to hear state 27 law claims has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, them under the conditions set out in 28 § 1367(c).” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1999. These conditions are 1 as follows: 2 (c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if-- 3 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 4 (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, 5 (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 6 jurisdiction, or 7 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)-(4). 9 “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is 10 triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the . . . values of 11 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001 (internal citations and 12 quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]he Supreme Court has stated, and [the Ninth Circuit has] 13 often repeated, that in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, 14 the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining 15 state-law claims.” Id. (omission in original, internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 16 Upon considering these legal principles in light of the record here, especially that no 17 federal claims remain, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not 18 decline supplemental jurisdiction in this case. 19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. By no later than October 24, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order showing 20 cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction in this case. 21 2. By this same date, Defendant may, but is not required to, file a response to this order 22 regarding its position. 23 3. Nothing in this order relieves the parties of pending discovery obligations. 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 4. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this 2 case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5| Dated: _ October 10, 2024 [Je hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28