United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 26 of 27
1
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also
2
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 937–38 (9th Cir. 2003) (as
3
amended) (holding that Section 1367(c) grants federal courts the discretion to dismiss state law
4
claims when all federal claims have been dismissed). In considering whether to retain
5
supplemental jurisdiction, a court should consider factors such as “economy, convenience,
6
fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)
7
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “in the usual case in which all federal-
8
law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to
9
exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” Exec. Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S.
10
Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1553 n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted), overruled on other
11
grounds by Cal. Dep’t of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008).
12
Here, the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support dismissal of
13
Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. This case is still at the pleading stage, and no discovery has
14
taken place. Federal judicial resources are conserved by dismissing the state law theories of relief
15
at this stage. Further, the Court finds that dismissal promotes comity as it enables California
16
courts to interpret questions of state law. This is an especially important consideration in the
17
instant case because Plaintiff asserts a claim that demands an analysis of the reach of Article I,
18
section 2 of the California Constitution in the age of social media and the Internet.
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state
19
20
law claims, and instead DISMISSES those claims.3 The Court provides leave to amend because
21
Plaintiff may be able to plead a federal cause of action that warrants the Court’s exercise of
22
supplemental jurisdiction.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Although Plaintiff’s complaint invokes the Declaratory Judgment Act, see Compl. ¶ 24, that Act
“does not by itself confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Liberatore, 408 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2005). As a result, Plaintiff’s citation to the Declaratory
Judgment Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
26
Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION;
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION