IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 18, 2012
ASHWINI L. KUMAR, RAJENDRA KUMAR,
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, RECONTRUST COMPANY, CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
On June 5, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) No objections were filed.
Accordingly, any findings of fact are presumed correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The portion of the Findings and Recommendations concerning dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal claims is ADOPTED and augmented as follows. Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations fail to allege viable federal claims, and since Plaintiffs' failure to respond to Recontrust Company's dismissal motion, and the Order to Show Cause filed May 15, 2012, convey they cannot allege viable federal claims, Plaintiffs' federal claims are dismissed with prejudice.
In light of this dismissal, the issue is reached whether supplemental jurisdiction should continue being exercised over Plaintiffs' state claims. "[P]endent [or supplemental] jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of [a party's] right." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion to sua sponte "decid[e] whether to decline, or to retain, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when any factor in [28 U.S.C.§ 1367(c)] is implicated[.]" Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). A district court can "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over" pendent state claims if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). "While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values 'of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.'" Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001.
Judicial economy does not favor continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this action since none of the state law claims have been addressed on the merits. See Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337, 338 (9th Cir. 1986)("The district court, of course, has the discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention of jurisdiction or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without prejudice.")(internal citation omitted). Nor do the comity and fairness factors weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction since "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726.
Since the Gibbs factors do not weigh in favor continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claims, Plaintiffs' state claims are remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court in California. Further, the Clerk of Court shall entered judgment on Plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to this order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.