JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-06558 PA (SPx) Date August 14, 2020 Title Adolpho Cabrera-Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE T. Jackson Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS The Court has received plaintiff Adolfo Cabrera-Martinez’s (“Plaintiff”) Voluntary Dismissal of Federal Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs claims for: (1) Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Monell; and (3) Failure to Train, Supervise, and Discipline (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Monell. The only remaining claims are those brought by Plaintiff under state law. The Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Once supplemental jurisdiction has been established under § 1367(a), a district court “can decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over a pendant claim only if one of the four categories specifically enumerated in section 1367(c) applies.” Executive Software v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555-56 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original Jurisdiction, (3) the district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ individual state law claims because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCV20331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.