Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DIST.

United States District Court, N.D. California


February 27, 2004.

EDWARD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DIST., et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING STATUTORY CLAIMS; REMANDING PLAINTIFF'S REMAINING COMMON LAW CLAIMS
By order filed February 9, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192, on all claims asserted against it and granted summary judgment in favor of Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ("AC Transit"), to the extent plaintiffs claims arise from plaintiff's termination. As a result, plaintiff's remaining claims, all against AC Transit, are plaintiff's statutory hostile work environment claims, alleged pursuant to Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), as well as plaintiff's common law claims, to the extent based on hostile work environment.*fn1

By separate order filed February 9, 2004, the Court directed plaintiff to show cause, Page 2 in writing and no later than February 23, 2004, why his remaining statutory claims should not be dismissed based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause and, consequently, has failed to show that his remaining statutory claims should not be dismissed.

  Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in the Court's order to show cause, plaintiff's remaining statutory claims are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

  The Court's jurisdiction over the instant action is based solely on the existence of a federal question. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) Consequently, the Court's jurisdiction over the state law claims is supplemental in nature. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, the single federal claim has been dismissed. Pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), the Court hereby exercises its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining common law state law claims and, accordingly, REMANDS such claims to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Alameda.

  The Clerk shall close the file.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.