Acosta

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CRISTOBAL ACOSTA, Case No. 18-cv-00958-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

9 v. REMAND TO STATE COURT

10 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Cristobal Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion To Remand Entire Action To 14 State Court. Motion, ECF 66. On August 19, 2019, mere weeks before the long-scheduled trial 15 date in this action, Plaintiff filed his motion for remand on the ground that because this Court has 16 granted summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, leaving only state law claims, the 17 Court should exercise its discretion and remain the entire case to state court. See id. For the reasons 18 discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On the night of January 8, 2017, Plaintiff sat in his car stopped at the side of the road with a 21 mechanical breakdown that caused “backfiring.” Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)…