Opinion
5:23-cv-351-PRL
07-16-2024
VINCENT ZUNIGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GROVELAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP R. LAMMENS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Upon a case review, the docket reflects that Plaintiffs' federal claims were dismissed on August 29, 2023 - almost a year ago - leaving only Plaintiffs' state law claims for which they seek a writ of certiorari challenging the City of Groveland's quasi-judicial actions. (Doc. 25). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to replead any federal claims (if they could) and advised that if no federal claims were asserted, the Court would determine whether it was appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiffs never amended the complaint or otherwise attempted to add a federal claim.
As such, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining, and solely local, state law claims. Indeed, these remaining claims are based on purported challenges to local ordinances with no implications beyond Plaintiffs and the City of Goveland.
Accordingly, Counts I, II, III and IV are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED