Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On September 20, 2006 the Court granted Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment 18 (Doc. 131) and dismissed the lead case, Ramirez v. Glendale Union Highschool Dist. No. 19 205, No. 03-0060 ("Ramirez I"). The Dismissal Order did not address the related action, 20 Ramirez v. Soto, No. 04-2909 ("Ramirez II"), but only the Motion For Summary Judgment 21 filed in Ramirez I before consolidation (Doc. 75). On September 27, 2006 Defendants filed 22 a proposed form of judgment in favor of Defendant Glendale Union High School District, 23 as well as other individual defendants. (Doc. 136). On October 11, 2006, Plaintiff objected 24 to the form of judgment because it sought to enter judgment in favor of individual defendants 25 named in Ramirez II, but not named in Ramirez I. (Doc. 136). On October 18, 2006, the 26 Court ordered that judgment would not be entered in either Ramirez I or Ramirez II until a 27 ruling issues on whether Ramirez II survives in light of the dismissal of Ramirez I. (Doc. 28
Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 147 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joe Ramirez and Ana Ramirez,) Individually and as Parents and Legal) ) Guardians of Jose Ramirez,, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Glendale Union High School District No.) ) 205, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

CV 03-0060-PHX-ROS (Lead) CV 04-2908-PHX-ROS (Cons.) ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

139). The Court further ordered the parties to submit simultaneous briefing on whether Ramirez II survives in light of the Ramirez I dismissal, (Doc. 139), which the parties did (Docs. 141, 142). Having reviewed the briefing, the Court finds that the state-law negligence claim brought on behalf of Jose Ramirez for failure to report as alleged in Ramirez II survived summary judgement. The Court, however, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over this remaining state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) ("The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction."); Souch v. Howard, 27 Fed. Appx. 793, 795 (9th Cir. 2001) ("When all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the interests promoted by supplemental jurisdiction are no longer present, and a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). The case, therefore, will be dismissed. Plaintiff can re-file the action in state court, as the statute of limitations was tolled while the action proceeded in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003) (upholding 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which requires state courts to toll their statutes of limitations when federal district courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Ramirez v. Soto, No. 04-2909, shall be dismissed and terminated. 3. Judgment shall be entered in Ramirez v. Glendale Union Highschool Dist. No. 205,

No. 03-0060, on behalf of Defendants. The Court having granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims, this case is dismissed. 4. costs. -2Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 147 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiffs shall pay Defendants within 30 days of this Order $150.00 for Defendants'

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

Ramirez v. Glendale Union Highschool Dist. No. 205, No. 03-0060, shall be

terminated.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2007.

-3Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 147 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 3 of 3