UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 28, 2009
MIHAI DAN POPOVICI, PLAINTIFF,
SHAHRAM VOSOUGH, AN INDIVIDUAL; COASTAL GROUP, SA, CAPACITY UNKNOWN; NEERU, SA, CAPACITY UNKNOWN, ESCAZU VILLAS, SA, CAPACITY UNKNOWN, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO DISMISS THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AND REMANDING FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURSDICTION [Application filed July 16, 2009]
On July 15, 2009, the Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Continuing the Hearing Date on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to August 10, 2009. See Doc. No. 16 (July 15, 2009). In that Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff had filed his Complaint on the basis of a nine state causes of action and a single federal cause of action (under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964) that rested on those state claims. Because Plaintiff expressly sought relief on the basis of a federal statute, remand was inappropriate. The Court's Order noted, however, that Plaintiff could move to voluntarily dismiss his RICO claim. See July 15, 2009 Order at 6-7.
On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application to dismiss that cause of action. Doc. No. 18 (July 16, 2009). Plaintiff requested that, upon granting that application, the Court sua sponte remand the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants filed a Response in which they urged the Court to keep the removed case because it would be unfair and/or cause prejudice to them. See Doc. No. 19 (July 16, 2009).
The Court grants the application and dismisses the Third Cause of Action. Because the case no longer contains a basis for federal question jurisdiction and no other basis for federal jurisdiction appears from the Complaint or the Notice of Removal, the Court also remands the action. As this case is still in the pleadings stage and fundamentally concerns state claims, the Court exercises its discretion in favor of remand, even if not compelled to do so. Thus, in summary, the Court grants Plaintiff's Application, dismisses the Third Cause of Action, and remands the case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.