1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 T.C., Case No.: 3:23-cv-02225-JO-MMP

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER STAYING

SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW

14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a Public Entity;

CLAIMS

CHIEF OF POLICE DAVE NISLEIT,

15 individually and in his official capacity, as 16 Chief of Police at SDPD for City of San Diego; MARA W. ELLIOTT, individually 17 and in her official capacity, as City 18 Attorney for City of San Diego; JESSE ZALDIVAR, individually and in his 19 official capacity, as SDPD Investigator for 20 City of San Diego; JOSHUA H. KAY, individually and in his official capacity, as 21 City Attorney for City of San Diego; 22 JEFFREY A. BROOKER, individually and in his official capacity, as City 23 Attorney for City of SanDiego; 24 PATRICIA MIRANDA, individually and in her official capacity, as Deputy City 25 Attorney for City of SanDiego; and DOES 26 1 through 10, inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 1 On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff T.C. filed a complaint, alleging eight different 2 causes of action under federal and state law seeking both injunctive relief and monetary 3 damages against the City of San Diego and the following individuals in their individual 4 and official capacity: City Attorneys for the City of San Diego Mara W. Elliott, Joshua H. 5 Kay, Jeffrey A. Brooker, and Patricia Miranda, Chief of Police Dave Nisleit, San Diego 6 Police Department Investigator Jesse Zaldivar, and DOES 1 through 10. Dkt. 1. 7 On December 15, 2023, the Court held oral argument. Dkt. 8. For the reasons stated 8 on the record at the oral argument, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s first 9 and fifth claims seeking injunctive relief pursuant to Younger abstention principles and 10 stayed Plaintiff’s second, third, fourth, and fifth claims requesting monetary damages under 11 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 9. At this hearing, the Court took under submission the issue of 12 whether it should dismiss or retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for breach 13 of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction 14 of emotional distress (his sixth, seventh, and eighth claims). Id. 15 After reviewing this matter, the Court has decided to exercise its supplemental 16 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant 17 of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 28 U.S.C. § 18 1367(c). Because these claims “derive from [the same] common nucleus of operative 19 fact[s]” as Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction. 20 Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). As with Plaintiff’s federal claims 21 for damages, the Court will stay these three state law claims pending resolution of the 22 related state court adjudication. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 23 2004) (holding that where injunctive relief claims are dismissed due to abstention 24 principles, related “damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are 25 completed”). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 This case will recommence after the parties have notified the Court of the completion 2 || of the state court adjudication. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: March 13, 2024 5 6 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28