M. P. v. County of Los Angeles

I. DISCUSSION

A. Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) Defendants first argue the Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case, even in the absence of a federal law claim. Because the initial removal to this Court was proper, Defendants contend that a basis for jurisdiction still exists. See Response, at 3 (arguing that “the fact that none of the federal question claims remain does not create a jurisdictional defect”).

The Supreme Court has held that “[a] district court's decision whether to exercise . . . jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639, 129 S. Ct. 1862, 1866, 173 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2009). Therefore, “when a court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over pendent state-law claims.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc., 556 U.S. at 640, citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has explained that…