Opinion
21-cv-07555-EMC
08-30-2022
BENJAMIN JUSTER, Plaintiff, v. WORKDAY, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION DOCKET NOS. 26, 29, 52
EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge.
Previously, the Court granted in part and deferred in part Defendants Workday and HR's motions to dismiss. Specifically, the Court granted the motions to dismiss Mr. Juster's FCRA claims but deferred ruling on the state law claims. The Court gave Mr. Juster leave to amend his FCRA claims but noted that, if he decided not to file an amended complaint, then the Court would consider whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Docket No. 51 (Order at 23). Mr. Juster has now filed a statement, noting that he will not file an amended complaint regarding the FCRA claims that the Court dismissed. Thus, the Court now turns to the issue of supplemental jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if, e.g., “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, given the early stage of the proceedings, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Juster's state law claims. See Parra v. Pacificare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[O]nce the district court, at an early stage of the litigation, dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in also dismissing the remaining state claims.”).
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders the Clerk of the Court to dismiss Mr. Juster's case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter a final judgment reflecting that Mr. Juster's FCRA claims are dismissed with prejudice and that the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file in the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.