CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-9455-MWF (MAAx) Date: December 22, 2025 Title: Destiney Rose Rezaei v. LVNV Funding LLC et al Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge

Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant: None Present None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND [9]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Destiney Rose Rezaei’s Motion to Remand filed on October 6, 2025. (Docket No. 9). Defendants LVNV Funding LLC, et al. filed an Opposition on October 22, 2025. (Docket No. 20). Plaintiff filed a Reply on November 5, 2025. (Docket No. 21).

After reading and considering the papers on the Motion, the Court determined that Plaintiff unambiguously sought to amend her Complaint to dismiss her federal claims. (See Reply at 2). The Court accordingly issued an Order to Show Cause to Defendants as to why the Court should not grant the amendment and remand the action to state court. (Docket No. 22).

Defendants responded that while jurisdiction is assessed at the time of removal, Defendants would not oppose remand if Plaintiff’s putative federal claims are dismissed. (See Docket No. 23). Accordingly, given Defendants’ non-opposition, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby amended and all federal claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

While Defendants are correct that amendments may not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court may still decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remand them to state court. “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, ______________________________________________________________________________

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 25-9455-MWF (MAAx) Date: December 22, 2025 Title: Destiney Rose Rezaei v. LVNV Funding LLC et al fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (quoting Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Fent v. Okla. Water Res. Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 2000)).

Having considered these factors and in light of Defendants’ non-opposition to remand, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Parties in court without a lawyer are called “pro se litigants.” These parties often face special challenges in federal court. Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an on-line application to request services as follows: on-line applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/los- angeles, or call (213) 385-2977, ext. 270.

______________________________________________________________________________