From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Voychuk v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. 2:05-CV-02007-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:05-CV-02007-MCE-GGH.

May 1, 2008


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff Sergey Voychuk ("Voychuk") brought this personal injury action in California state court in August 2005. Plaintiff claims that Defendants State of California and California Highway Patrol Officer Jeff George ("George") (collectively "Defendants") violated his civil rights and caused him physical and emotional injury by using excessive force to effect his arrest. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges federal claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state claims for personal injury and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants removed the case to this Court.

On March 21, 2006, this Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Voychuk arising from the same incident. Voychuk now moves for an order lifting that stay, allowing amendment to his Complaint to withdraw his section 1983 claim, and remanding the matter back to the state court. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition.

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

ANALYSIS

On March 21, 2006, this Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of state court criminal proceedings arising out of the same set of facts. Mem. Order 6, March 21, 2006. According to the evidence provided by Voychuk, the criminal proceedings have concluded. Defendants do not oppose lifting the stay. Accordingly, the stay is hereby lifted.

Rule 15(a) provides that "leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The policy of favoring amendments to pleadings, as evinced by Rule 15(a), "should be applied with extreme liberality." United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Pretrial Scheduling Order issued in this case requires good cause to amend the pleadings. The proposed amendments seek to omit the section 1983 claims. In view of Defendants' non-opposition to Plaintiff's request, the Motion to Amend is hereby granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a proposed First Amended Complaint on March 13, 2008 (see Exhibit 3 to this Motion). The First Amended Complaint is hereby deemed properly filed as of the date of this Order.

As the First Amended Complaint no longer states any federal question and the parties are not diverse, the Court finds itself divested of subject-matter jurisdiction. In light of the above and in light of Defendants' non-opposition, this matter shall be remanded to the court from which it was removed.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the stay entered on March 21, 2006 is lifted, leave to amend is granted, the proposed First Amended Complaint is hereby deemed filed, and the matter is remanded to the state court from which it was removed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Voychuk v. State

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 1, 2008
No. 2:05-CV-02007-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)
Case details for

Voychuk v. State

Case Details

Full title:SERGEY VOYCHUK, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA and JEFF GEORGE…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 1, 2008

Citations

No. 2:05-CV-02007-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2008)