Olfati

facts. 7 The parties stipulate and recognize, however, that the Writ of Mandate asserted under Cal. 8 Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 as the Twelfth “cause of action” does not share those same common nucleus 9 of operative facts. Moreover, the application and interpretation of the California Public Records 10 Act (CPRA) in California Government Code Sections 6250 through 6276.50 is a complex issues of 11 state law. 12 Good cause also exists insofar as courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 13 writs of mandate asserted under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. Wynn v. Hedgpeth, 2012 U.S. Dist. 14 LEXIS 6548, *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2012) (“a writ of mandate is exclusively a state law remedy, 15 and district courts routinely deny supplemental jurisdiction over claims seeking a writ of mandate under 16 section 1085”); Wilridge v. Kernan, 2018 WL 2431634, *4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018); San Francisco 17 Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 142 F. Supp. 3d 910, 917 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 18 Thus, recognizing that Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate in the First Amended Complaint meets the definition of a 28 U.S.C. Section 1441…