The opinion
1 JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 VERLENA GROOMES, No. CV 25-2884-E
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING PURPORTED
13 v.
FEDERAL LAW CLAIM WITH
14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,
PREJUDICE AND REMANDING CASE TO
15 Defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT
16
17
18 Plaintiff filed the Complaint in Superior Court in 2025. The only named Defendant is
19 the City of Los Angeles.1
20
21 The Complaint arose from a single incident of alleged excessive force by Los Angeles
22 Police. All but one of the eight claims in the Complaint are state law claims.
23
24 The one exception, the seventh claim, mentions 42 U.S.C. section 1983,2 but
25 manifestly fails to state a federal claim. A plaintiff may not bring a claim under 42 U.S.C.
26
1 Plaintiff did not name any other Defendant within the allotted time. See ECF
27
Doc. 12-1, p. 2.
1 section 1983 against a municipal entity such as Defendant on a theory of respondeat superior.
2 See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Polk
3 County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). A municipal entity may be held liable only if the
4 alleged wrongdoing was committed pursuant to a municipal policy, custom or usage. See
5 Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 402-04
6 (1997); Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) “(Monell”).
7 “Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability [against
8 a local governmental entity] unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by
9 an existing, unconstitutional [local government] policy, which policy can be attributed to a
10 [local government] policymaker.” City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24
11 (1985); Meehan v. County of Los Angeles, 856 F.2d 102, 107 (9th Cir. 1988) (same). Claim
12 Seven fails plausibly to assert any facts demonstrating that the alleged excessive force
13 incident resulted from a policy, custom or usage of Defendant.
14
15 Nevertheless, Defendant removed the action to federal court on the basis of Claim
16 Seven and has now moved for summary judgment.3 The Motion contends, inter alia, that
17 Claim Seven fails as a matter of law under Monell. This contention is plainly correct. None of
18 the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to the Motion raises any triable issue of fact
19 with respect to whether the alleged excessive force incident resulted from a policy, custom or
20 usage of Defendant. Therefore, Claim Seven is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
21 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
22
23 In light of the dismissal with prejudice of the only purported federal law claim in the
24 case, the Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the
25 remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.,
26 556 U.S. 635, 640-41 (2009) (district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
27
3 The Motion was filed March 3, 2026, but the case was not transferred to the
1 || jurisdiction over state law claims where court has dismissed claims over which it had original
2 || jurisdiction); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (same).*
3
4 Therefore, it is ordered that: (1) Claim Seven is dismissed with prejudice;
5 || (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise denied without prejudice; (3) this
6 || case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
7 || Angeles, No. 25-LBCV00174; and (4) the Clerk immediately shall effect the remand and close
8 || this federal case.
9
10 DATED: June 3, 2026
11 □
i LEE EeazZz
13 □ CHARLESF.EICK
14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 4 Under the circumstances of this case, the balance of factors, including judicial
27 || economy, convenience, fairness and comity, point toward declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction herein. See, e.g., Oliver v. Ralph’s Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir.
28 || 2011); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010).