Morris v. Board of Trustees of the California State University ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTHEW MORRIS, Case No. 23-cv-04562-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT 9 v. 10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et 11 al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 As the Court described in its Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 15 brings state law claims against state defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 48 (OSC), 46 (SAC). While 16 Defendants argue that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, 17 Dkt. No. 49, the Court declines to do so under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), which permits a court in its 18 discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, “the district court has dismissed all 19 claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 20 The Court recognizes that these Defendants were not the ones who chose to remove this 21 case. Nonetheless, this is the usual circumstance in which the appropriate course is to have what 22 remains of the case—solely California state law claims—resolved by a California state court. See 23 Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). And since Defendants have not 24 yet filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, they will not be prejudiced in 25 fashioning their response as a state court demurrer. 26 // 27 // 1 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California, County 2 of Alameda, and directs the Clerk to close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: May 28, 2024 5 Aspurd 5 Mb HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 QO 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28