Tull v. Jenkins
- Sallie Kim
- 3:24-cv-06599
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Steven Tull v. Brooke Jenkins, Judge Kim dismissed the remaining state-law claim without prejudice, allowing refiling in state court within 30 days.
Steven Tull’s remaining claim against the City was dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling in state court within 30 days; the City and Brooke Jenkins were no longer facing the resolved federal-court claims described in the order.
What happened
In Steven Tull v. Brooke Jenkins, the only remaining claim was Steven Tull’s claim that the City violated California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Defendants asked the federal court to send that claim to state court, and Tull did not oppose the request.
The court declined to keep the state-law claim because all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction had been resolved, and the remaining questions involved unsettled state law. Although judicial efficiency slightly favored keeping the claim, the court concluded that fairness and respect for state courts weighed more heavily.
Judge Sallie Kim dismissed the remaining claim without prejudice because Tull had not removed the case from state court. The order allows him to refile the claim in state court within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Tull v. Jenkins · No. 3:24-cv-06599
- Sallie Kim
- Aug. 13, 2026
Background
The court stated that, in an earlier summary-judgment ruling, it granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by the City and County of San Francisco and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. The court left pending only Tull’s state-law claim against the City under California’s Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, California Government Code §§ 3303(g), 3305, and 3306. The court had granted summary judgment on Tull’s other claims, including claims under California Labor Code § 1050, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and Government Code § 12653. The opinion also states that summary judgment was granted on claims Tull had abandoned.
Defendants moved to remand the remaining state-law claim to state court. Tull filed a statement of non-opposition.
Reasoning
The court considered whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a state-law claim connected to claims within the federal court’s original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction. The court also weighed judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts.
The court concluded that the remaining issues involved unsettled questions of state law that belonged in state court. Judicial economy weighed slightly in favor of keeping the claim because the federal court had already invested effort in the case, but the court found that the other factors outweighed that consideration. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Ruling
Judge Sallie Kim dismissed Tull’s sole remaining claim against the City under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act without prejudice to refiling it in state court within 30 days. The court explained that dismissal, rather than remand, was appropriate because Tull had not removed the action from state court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.