1

JS-6

2 3

4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

10 11 BRIAN GOLDBERG, ) CASE NO. 2:17-CV-09226-AB- ) GJS 12 Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER GRANTING EX ) 14 vs. ) PARTE APPLICATION TO ) REMAND THE MATTER TO 15 NAYAL YASHAR, ET AL., ) STATE COURT DUE TO 16 ) LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER Defendants. ) JURISDICTION 17 )

) 18 ) 19

20 _____________________________________

21 The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Remand the 22 Matter to State Court Due to Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Application,” 23 Dkt. No. 122), and Plaintiff’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 124) and the City’s Response 24 (Dkt. No. 126) thereto. The Application is GRANTED. 25 Plaintiff originally filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. It 26 was removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction deriving from 27 Plaintiff’s claim against the City of Beverly Hills under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 28 complaint was ultimately amended to assert two claims under § 1983 against the 1 City. The Court granted summary judgment in City’s favor on Plaintiff’s § 1983 2 claims and denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that order. See Orders (Dkt. Nos. 3 114, 118). Accordingly, as no federal question remains and no basis for diversity 4 jurisdiction exists, there is no basis for the Court’s original jurisdiction. 5 Under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, weighing factors such as 6 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the court “may retain jurisdiction 7 [over state claims] even if the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction 8 are dismissed.” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995). Here the Court 9 declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. First, 10 the sole remaining claim is for false arrest/imprisonment against the individual 11 defendants Nahal Yashar, Danny Yashar, and Fariba Lavian. Comity weighs in 12 favor or such purely state law claims being adjudicated in state court. Judicial 13 economy also favors remand for several reasons. The factual and legal bases for 14 the remaining claim are distinct from the bases of the § 1983 claims, so this 15 Court’s familiarity with the case would not be a significant advantage for the 16 remainder of the case, which is a trial. And although this case is set for a final 17 pretrial conference on September 18, 2020 and a jury trial on October 6, 2020, in 18 light of the coronavirus pandemic those dates will not hold and would be continued 19 until mid-2021 at the earliest. Finally, judicial economy favors remand in light of 20 the Central District’s massive caseload combined with its numerous judicial 21 vacancies. Convenience and fairness to the parties do not weigh heavily either 22 way, but given that Plaintiff originally filed this action in State Court, remanding it 23 does not strike the Court as inconvenient or unfair to Plaintiff. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 1 The Court therefore declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state 2 ||law claims, and hereby REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior 3 Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). 5 IT ISSO ORDERED. (nh C-—— Dated: September 11, 2020 8 HON. ANDRE BIROTTE JR. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28