# Lien v. City of San Diego

> District Court, S.D. California · March 6, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087281

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** March 6, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087281

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 MANDY LIEN and ERIN SMITH, Case No. 21-cv-224-MMA (WVG)

10 Plaintiffs,
ORDER (1) GRANTING OFFICER
11 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS; (2) DENYING IN PART
12 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
AND GRANTING IN PART
13 Defendants. DEFENDANT CITY’S MOTION TO
DISMISS; AND (3) DENYING AS
14
MOOT DEFENDANT CITY’S
15 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
16

17 [Doc. No. 47, 48, 53]

18
19 Plaintiffs Mandy Lien (“Lien”) and Erin Smith (“Smith” and together with Lien,
20 “Plaintiffs”) bring this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants City
21 of San Diego (“City”), Matt Novak, Ernesto Servin, Rick Aguilar, Robert Gassman,
22 Andrew Le, Ryan Heinze, Sean Harn, Alyce Sullivan, Michael Wheelus, Ryan Welch,
23 and Does (collectively, “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 34 (“Second Amended Complaint”
24 or “SAC”).1 Defendant City moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ second, third,
25
26
27 1 Defendants Matt Novak, Ernesto Servin, Rick Aguilar, Robert Gassman, Andrew Le, Ryan Heinze,
Sean Harn, Alyce Sullivan, Michael Wheelus, and Ryan Welch are collectively referred to as the
28
1 fourth, and sixth causes of action. See Doc. No. 47. Defendant City also moves to
2 dismiss all causes of action against Officer Defendants. See Doc. No. 48. Officer
3 Defendants move to dismiss all causes of action against them. See Doc. No. 53.
4 Plaintiffs filed oppositions to all three motions, and Defendants replied. See Doc.
5 Nos. 54, 55, 59, 60, 65, 66. On February 27, 2023, the parties appeared before the Court
6 for oral argument on the motions at which time the Court took the matters under
7 submission. See Doc. No. 67. For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS
8 Officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss; (2) DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART
9 Defendant City’s motion to dismiss; (3) DECLINES to exercise supplemental
10 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant City; and (4) DENIES AS
11 MOOT Defendant City’s motion for summary judgment.
12 I. BACKGROUND
13 Based on the parties’ and the Court’s familiarity with the material facts of this case
14 (both disputed and undisputed), the Court does not set forth a detailed recitation of those
15 facts herein except as relevant to the disposition of the instant motions. Broadly,
16 Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the San Diego Police Department’s conduct
17 during a demonstration involving supporters and opponents of former President Donald
18 Trump that took place in Pacific Beach on January 9, 2021.
19 Plaintiffs initiated this action on February 5, 2021. See Doc. No. 1. In the Original
20 Complaint, Plaintiffs initially named the City of San Diego, San Diego Police Chief
21 David Nisleit, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, and Does 1–10 as Defendants. See Doc.
22 No. 1. Plaintiffs brought two causes of action for constitutional violations, seeking to
23 hold the City liable pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,
24 690–91 (1978), and the individual defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id.
25 ¶¶ 37–44.
26
27
28
1 On May 24, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted in
2 part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to strike. See Doc. No. 7. On June 7, 2021,
3 Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which named only the City and Does 1–
4 25 as Defendants. See Doc. No. 8. Plaintiffs brought five causes of action: (1) individual
5 liability against Doe Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of the Ralph
6 Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51.7 against Doe Defendants; (3) violation of the Bane Act, Cal.
7 Civil Code § 52.1 against all Defendants; (4) negligence in violation of Cal. Civil Code
8 § 1714 against all Defendants; and (5) assault and battery against all Defendants. Id.
9 ¶¶ 31–58.
10 With leave of the Court, see Doc. No. 33, and unopposed by Defendants, see Doc.
11 No. 32, Plaintiffs filed their SAC on December 7, 2021. See Doc. No. 34. By way of the
12 SAC, Plaintiffs renamed the City and Does as defendants, and also named the ten Officer
13 Defendants for the first time in this matter. Plaintiffs bring five causes of action: (1)
14 individual liability against Officer Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation
15 of the Ralph Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51.7 against all Defendants; (3) violation of the Bane
16 Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 against all Defendants; (4) negligence in violation of Cal.
17 Civil Code § 1714 against all Defendants; and (5) assault and battery against all
18 Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 41–76.
19 On September 20, 2022, discovery closed pursuant to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s
20 Rule 16 scheduling order. See Doc. No. 41.3 Per that same order, the deadline to file all
21 dispositive pretrial motions was October 21, 2022. See id.
22 On October 21, 2022, Defendant City of San Diego filed a motion for summary
23 judgment as to all claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).
24 See Doc. No. 47. That same day, Defendant City filed a motion to dismiss the claims
25
26
27 3 Judge Gallo twice extended the deadlines set forth in the initial Rule 16 scheduling order, see Doc.
No. 19, first on the Court’s own motion, see Doc. No. 26, and then based on a joint motion by the
28
1 against the Doe Defendants and all named Officer Defendants for failure to prosecute
2 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), or in the alternative, failure to serve
3 them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Doc. No. 48.
4 Defendant City’s motion to dismiss alerted Plaintiffs to their failure to serve the
5 Officer Defendants. Plaintiffs state that “[a]s soon as Plaintiffs learned of the oversight,
6 Plaintiffs immediately had the individual officers served.” See Doc. No. 65 at 2.
7 Plaintiffs filed proof of service of summons as to the Officer Defendants on October 31,
8 2022. See id.
9 On November 21, 2022, Officer Defendants moved the Court to dismiss them from
10 this action for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11 41(b). See Doc. No. 53. Alternatively, Officer Defendants move the Court to dismiss the
12 action against them for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve them pursuant to Federal Rule of
13 Civil Procedure 4(m). See id.
14 II. OFFICER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
15 Officer Defendants move the Court to dismiss them from this action for Plaintiffs’
16 failure to prosecute and failure to timely serve. See id. The Court addresses each
17 argument in turn.
18 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to
20 prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
21 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” “Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is a sanction, to
22 be imposed only in ‘extreme circumstances.’” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d
23 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366
24 (9th Cir. 1996)). For the imposition of such a severe sanction, the conduct of the
25 disobedient party must be “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Id.
26 (quoting United States ex rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600,
27 603 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). In determining whether to dismiss a case under
28 Rule 41(b), a Court must weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
1 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice
2 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
3 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–
4 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles, 782
5 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors
6 support dismissal, or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.”
7 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations
8 omitted) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263).
9 As to the first factor, “[t]he public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation
10 always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999).
11 Since December 7, 2021, when they filed the SAC, Plaintiffs have—based on the docket
12 and briefing before the Court—not taken any steps to prosecute this action against
13 Officer Defendants. Although Plaintiffs urge that they “conduct[ed] all the discovery that
14 was needed, by obtaining the body worn camera files of all the individual officers,” see
15 Doc. No. 65 at 3, this ignores Officer Defendants’ ability to conduct discovery, and the
16 Court’s lack of jurisdiction over defendants who have not been served. Direct Mail
17 Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988)
18 (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has
19 been served properly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. . . . [W]ithout substantial compliance with
20 Rule 4, neither actual notice nor simply naming the defendant in the complaint will
21 provide personal jurisdiction.”). Officer Defendants were named on December 7, 2021
22 but were not served until October 31, 2022. See Doc. Nos. 34, 52. The first factor
23 therefore strongly favors dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th
24 Cir. 2002) (“Given [the plaintiff’s] failure to pursue the case for almost four months, this
25 factor weighs in favor of dismissal.”).
26 As to the second factor, Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute as to Officer Defendants
27 consumed some of the Court’s time that could have been devoted to other cases on the
28 docket that are being diligently prosecuted. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1261.
1 Moreover, as discussed further below, the alternative remedy at this juncture would be to
2 reopen discovery, further interfering with the Court’s ability to manage its docket. The
3 Court concludes this factor also weighs strongly in favor of dismissal.
4 To make an adequate showing on the third factor,
5
a defendant must establish that plaintiff’s actions impaired defendant’s ability
6 to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the
7 case. . . . [P]endency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and of itself
to warrant dismissal. Limited delays and the prejudice to a defendant from
8 the pendency of a lawsuit are realities of the system that have to be accepted,
9 provided the prejudice is not compounded by unreasonable delays.

10
11 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “However, the law presumes
12 prejudice if the delay is unreasonable.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (“PPA”) Products
13 Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006). As “[u]nnecessary delay
14 inherently increases the risk that witnesses memories will fade and evidence will become
15 stale[,]” the Court concludes the delay here was unreasonable; more than ten months
16 elapsed between filing of the SAC and filing of proof of service of Officer Defendants.
17 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not catch their own mistake;
18 they were alerted to their failure to serve the Officer Defendants by the City’s instant
19 motions. See Doc. No. 65 at 2. That said, “[t]he presumption [of prejudice] may be
20 rebutted and if there is a showing that no actual prejudice occurred, that fact should be
21 considered when determining whether the district court exercised sound discretion.” PPA
22 at 1228 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “A plaintiff may proffer an
23 excuse for delay that, if anything but frivolous, shifts the burden of production to the
24 defendant to show at least some actual prejudice.” Id. at 1228 (internal citations and
25 quotation marks omitted).
26 The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ excuse is frivolous. Plaintiffs urge that the
27 failure to serve Officer Defendants was an “oversight” and argue that the city attorney
28 “conduct[ed] discovery on the individual defendants’ behalf through the City, attend[ed]
1 a mandatory settlement conference, depos[ed] Plaintiffs, provid[ed] bodycam videos
2 from the individual officers, and hir[ed] an expert to analyze those bodycam videos and
3 write a report.” See Doc. No. 65 at 2, 3. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs attach
4 two requests for admission and two interrogatories to their opposition to the motion to
5 dismiss. See Doc. No. 65-1 at 4–29. But these documents all clearly list only the “City
6 of San Diego” as the propounding party at the top of the document. See id. Plaintiffs fail
7 to provide—and the Court is not aware of —any authority supporting their position on
8 this point. As explained above, Plaintiffs have not taken reasonable steps to prosecute
9 their claims against Officer Defendants. The Court therefore concludes this factor
10 weighs strongly in favor of dismissal.
11 As to the fourth factor, “[p]ublic policy favors disposition of cases on the merits.”
12 Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 643. This generally counsels against dismissal. See PPA, 460
13 F.3d at 1228. Moreover, the “policy favoring resolution on the merits ‘is particularly
14 important in civil rights cases.’” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399 (quoting Eldridge v. Block,
15 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, this factor weighs against dismissal.
16 Fifth and finally, the Court considers the availability of less drastic measures.
17 Here, the only less drastic measure available is for the Court to vacate the scheduling
18 order, set new deadlines, reopen discovery, and holding the case as it relates to the City in
19 abeyance. This is still a drastic course, and Plaintiffs point to, and the Court is unaware
20 of, no viable alternatives.
21 On balance, the Court finds that dismissal is warranted for failure to prosecute.
22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
23 B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
24 Rule 4(m) requires a district court to grant an extension of time to effect service
25 only if a plaintiff shows good cause for the delay. See In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512
26 (9th Cir. 2001). Absent a showing of good cause, the district courts have discretion either
27 to dismiss the case without prejudice or to extend the time period to effect service. Id. at
28 513. “[A]t a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable neglect.” Id. at 512 (quoting
1 Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991)). “[I]nadvertent error or
2 ignorance of governing rules alone will not excuse a litigant’s failure to effect timely
3 service.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992).
4 Here, the Court finds no good cause for the delay in service. See Wei v. Hawaii,
5 763 F.2d 370, 372 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[Counsel’s] inadvertence . . . does not qualify as
6 good cause”); see also Whale v. United States, 792 F.2d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We
7 know of no cases in which counsel’s failure to read Rule 4 . . . constitute[d] ‘good cause’
8 or ‘justifiable excuse.’”). Moreover, as discussed above, the Court notes that the requests
9 for admission and interrogatories proffered by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to
10 the motion to dismiss list only the City as the propounding party, which cuts against
11 Plaintiffs’ argument that discovery was conducted by Officer Defendants. See Doc. No.
12 65-1 at 4–29. Rule 4(m) squarely places the onus on a plaintiff to serve a defendant.
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiffs apparently concede that they did not even attempt to
14 serve Officer Defendants until October 2022. See Doc. No. 65 at 2; see also Doc. No. 52.
15 The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for their failure
16 to serve.
17 In the absence of good cause, district courts should consider several equitable
18 factors in the exercise of their discretion. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th
19 Cir. 2007). Those factors include “a statute of limitations bar, prejudice to the defendant,
20 actual notice of a lawsuit, and eventual service.” Id. at 1041 (quoting Troxell v. Fedders
21 of N. Am., Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 383 (7th Cir. 1998)).
22 On one hand, the statute of limitations would prevent Plaintiffs from re-filing their
23 § 1983 claim. For claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the applicable statute of
24 limitations is California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Wallace
25 v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387–88 (2007); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004)
26 (“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations
27 for personal injury actions.”); Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2014). In
28 California, there is a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions such as §
1 1983 cases; here, it appears the two-year statute of limitations expired on January 9,
2 2023.4 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th
3 Cir. 2004). “This consideration should carry greater weight in § 1983 cases, because ‘the
4 public policy favoring resolution on the merits is ‘particularly important in civil rights
5 cases.’” Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 401 (itself quoting
6 Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1137)); see also Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th
7 Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4) (additional citations omitted) (explaining that “relief
8 under Rule 4(m) may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations
9 would bar the re-filed action.”).5 Additionally, Officer Defendants have now been served
10 in this case, albeit well outside Rule 4(m)’s 90-day window, which also weighs against
11 dismissal. See Doc. No. 52.
12 On the other hand, Plaintiffs offer no evidence that Officer Defendants received
13 actual notice of the claims against them prior to service of the SAC on October 31, 2022.
14 See id. Additionally, the last day to file dispositive motions has long since passed, and
15 Officer Defendants urge—and the Court agrees—that it would be “very prejudicial to
16 them if they are unable to file a summary judgment motion based on qualified
17 immunity.” See Doc. No. 53-1 at 6.
18 On balance, the Court concludes the factors weigh in favor dismissal. The Court
19 therefore concludes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides additional
20 grounds for dismissal of Officer Defendants.
21 III. DEFENDANT CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
22 Defendant City moves to dismiss the named Officer Defendants for lack of
23 prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, or in the alternative, failure
24 to timely serve them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Doc. No. 48. To
25

26
4 Regarding the statute of limitations as to their state law claims, Plaintiffs stated at the hearing that if
27 the Court dismissed Officer Defendants without prejudice, Plaintiffs would have thirty (30) days to
refile their state law claims in state court.
28
1 the extent Defendant City brings this motion on behalf of the Officer Defendants, the
2 Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant City’s motion as the Officer Defendants have now
3 brought their own motion to dismiss on similar grounds. See Doc. No. 53.
4 Defendant City also moves to dismiss Doe Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of
5 Civil Procedure 4(m). Rule 4(m) states: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after
6 the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—
7 must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be
8 made within a specified time.” To date, no additional Doe Defendants have been named
9 since the Officer Defendants were named in the SAC on December 7, 2021. See Doc.
10 No. 34.
11 Doe Defendants have not been served within the requisite time period under Rule
12 4(m). Additionally, discovery has closed and the deadline to amend the pleadings has
13 long since passed, see Doc. Nos. 26, 41, so Plaintiffs’ opportunity to name any Doe
14 Defendants has ended. See, e.g., Dillingham v. Emerson, No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB
15 (PC), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211516, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2022). Additionally, at
16 the February 27, 2023 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Doe Defendants should
17 be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant City’s motion to dismiss all
18 claims against Doe Defendants.
19 IV. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
20 Given the dismissal of Officer Defendants, no federal claim remains against any
21 Defendant. The Court therefore addresses whether it should continue to exercise
22 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the City.6 Because
23
24
25
6 At the hearing, Plaintiffs requested that they be allowed to add a claim for municipal liability against
26 the City pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.658, 690–91 (1978) based on
Captain Novak’s purported actions. Plaintiffs previously voluntarily dropped their Monell claim against
27 the City. Compare Doc. No. 1 ¶ 37–41 with Doc. No. 34 (“SAC”). Any claim not re-alleged in the
amended complaint will be considered waived. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th
28
1 the “jurisdictional questions ordinarily must precede merits determinations in
2 dispositional order,” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422,
3 431 (2007), the Court considers first the issue of supplemental jurisdiction over the state
4 law claims before reaching their merits.
5 The Court’s authority to entertain state law claims is governed by 28 U.S.C.
6 § 1367. Pursuant to § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental
7 jurisdiction over a state claim, if:
8
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
9
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which
10 the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
11
jurisdiction, or
12 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for
declining jurisdiction.
13

14 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). A “district court can decline jurisdiction under any one of [the] four
15 provisions” of § 1367(c). San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478
16 (9th Cir. 1998). When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over a state law
17 claim pursuant to one of the first three provisions of the statute, the court need not state
18 its reasons for dismissal. Id.
19 Section 1367(c) “confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by
20 enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise[.]” City of
21 Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). “[I]n the usual case in
22 which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be
23 considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience,
24 fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
25 remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 fn.7
26

27
pleading may be “considered waived if not repled”). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to
28
1 (1988), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Fent v. Okla. Water Res.
2 Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 2000). “The general rule is ‘when federal claims are
3 dismissed before trial, . . . pendent state law claims also should be dismissed.’” Kohler v.
4 Midway Land, LLC, No. 12cv0148 JM(WMc), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189703, at *12
5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) (quoting Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364.
6 367–68 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th
7 Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).
8 Here, considering the nature of Plaintiff’s state law claims and that no federal
9 claims remain in this case against any Defendant, the Court DECLINES to exercise
10 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against the City and dismisses
11 them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(1), (3); see also Locantore v. Hunt, 775
12 F. Supp. 2d 680, 689 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011) (“Plaintiff’s federal claims are all
13 dismissed prior to trial, and there is no reason to believe that judicial economy,
14 convenience, or fairness would be served by this [c]ourt exercising supplemental
15 jurisdiction over [p]laintiff’s state law claims, and to do so would be inconsistent with the
16 principle of comity.”); Cohill, 484 U.S. at 351–57 (concluding that elimination of all
17 federal claims gives the court “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise
18 jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant City’s motion for
19 summary judgment.
20 V. CONCLUSION
21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Officer Defendants’ motion to
22 dismiss, and DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendant City’s motion to
23 dismiss. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
24 state law claims against Defendant City. The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT
25 Defendant City’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED
26 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being refiled in state court as consistent with state law and
27 procedure, and consistent with the discussion above. Accordingly, this Order disposes of
28
1 claims and concludes the litigation in the matter. The Clerk of Court is instructed to
2 || close this case.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 || Dated: March 6, 2023
5 Mitel lM - /hisllr
6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087281. Public record. Not legal advice.