UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 10, 2011
BRYAN MACPHERSON, PAUL CROOK, CORONADO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORONADO, DOES 1-20, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larryalanburns United States District Judge
ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
On November 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit panel, ruling on Defendants' interlocutory appeal, reconsidered its earlier ruling, determined that Defendant MacPherson was entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity, and reversed this Court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. After receiving the Ninth Circuit's mandate, the Court on February 3 dismissed the complaint without specifying whether dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Bryan then filed an ex parte application to clarify the order of dismissal or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the dismissal. The motion points out Bryan was also bringing supplemental state claims, which were not the subject of the appeal. Bryan agrees his claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, § 52.1, arise under state law.*fn1
Because all federal claims in this case were dismissed before trial, the state claims are dismissed as well. United Mine Workers of Amer. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). But the state claims are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). To the extent Bryan's motion seeks reconsideration, it is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.