The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
On March 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [Doc. # 23]. Because the FDIC is no longer a party to this action and Plaintiff has abandoned her federal claims, federal question subject matter jurisdiction no longer exists in this case. (See Mar. 9, 2012 Order to Show Cause at 1 [Doc. # 22].) Therefore, the Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See Sanford
v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A district court 'may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction' if it 'has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.'" (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))).
In considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh factors such as "judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," which, "[i]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This litigation is at an early juncture, having not progressed beyond the pleadings stage. Neither the parties nor the Court has invested significant time litigating and adjudicating, respectively, Plaintiff's state law claims. Moreover, a federal court has no interest in exercising jurisdiction over state tort and contract claims concerning real property whereas California courts have a strong interest in determining claims arising under state law. Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ...