Jeannette Williams v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03384


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEANNETTE WILLIAMS, 7 Case No. 15-cv-03384-JSW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER REMANDING ACTION v. 9 Re: Docket No. 23 T-MOBILE USA, INC., 10 Defendant. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On October 14, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s 14 motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 15 ("TCPA"), and it gave Plaintiff leave to amend that claim. The Court reserved ruling on 16 Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt 17 Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), until it determined whether Plaintiff could state a viable 18 federal claim. (Docket No. 22.) 19 On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (Docket 20 No. 23) Because Plaintiff did not re-assert a federal claim and because Plaintiff did not alleged 21 any facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter, the Court ordered 22 Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 23 jurisdiction. 24 Plaintiff filed a timely reply on November 16, 2015, and urged the Court to remand, rather 25 than dismiss, the case. The Court has dismissed the only federal claim and there are no facts 26 demonstrating the Court has original jurisdiction over this matter. A district court may decline to 27 exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a case arising from a common nucleus of operative fact 28 where: (1) a novel or complex issue of state law is raised; (2) the claim substantially predominates 1 oveer the federaal claim; (3) the district court c dismissses the federral claims; or (4) under eexceptional 2 circcumstances. See 28 U.S S.C. § 1367(cc). In order to make thiss determinattion, courts sshould 3 con nsider factorrs such as "economy, con nvenience, ffairness, andd comity." A Acri v. Variann Associatess, 4 Incc., 114 F.3d 999, 9 1001 (9 9th Cir. 1997 7) (internal qquotations annd citations omitted). W When 5 "feederal-law cllaims are elim minated befo ore trial, the balance of ffactors to bee considered ... will pointt 6 tow ward declinin ng to exercisse jurisdictio on over the rremaining staate-law claim ms." Carneggie-Mellon 7 Un niv. v. Cohilll, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), supeerseded by sttatute, 28 U..S.C. § 14477(c); see also o 8 Un nited Mine Workers W of Am merica v. Giibbs, 383 U.S S. 715, 726 (1966) (sugggesting in diicta that "if 9 fed deral claims are dismisseed before triaal, ... the statte claims shoould be dism missed as well") 10 (footnote omittted), superseeded by statu ute, 28 U.S.C C. § 1367. 11 It would be equally y convenient for the partiies to try thee RFDCPA cclaim in statee court, 12 wh here Plaintifff originally filed f that claiim. The Couurt has expeended minim mal resourcess on this Northern District of California United States District Court 13 casse. Cf. Trusttees of the Construction C Indus. & Laaborers Heallth & Welfarre Trust v. D Desert Valleyy 14 Lan ndscape & Maintenance M e, Inc., 333 F.3d F 923, 9266 (9th Cir. 22003) (findinng an abuse oof discretion n 15 wh here the distrrict court ord dered a dismissal of statee law claims just seven ddays before ttrial and 16 afteer long delay ys). Therefo ore, the Courrt concludes that the prinnciples of coomity, conveenience, and 17 jud dicial econom my weigh ag gainst retainiing supplemeental jurisdicction in this case, and it declines to 18 exeercise jurisdiiction over th he RFDCPA A Claim. 19 Accord dingly, the Court REMAN NDS this acction to the S Superior Couurt of the Staate of 20 California for the t County of o San Mateo o. The Clerkk shall closee the file. 21 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 22 Daated: Novemb ber 24, 2015 5 23 24 ___________________________ JE EFFREY S. W WHITE 25 Unnited States D District Judgge 26 27 28 2