Funkhouser v. DAC FF 91, INC.

Background

The parties filed a joint stipulation asking the court to dismiss Jedrek Funkhouser’s sole federal claim and direct that the remaining claims, which were alleged under state law, be moved to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. The court had previously denied a similar request because the parties had not cited legal authority supporting that procedure.

Court’s Analysis

The parties relied on Herklotz v. Parkinson and argued that the federal court no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that Herklotz involved different pleadings and circumstances: in that case, a defendant’s decision to sever a claim created an entirely new and independent case. The court distinguished that situation from one in which a federal claim is dismissed while related state-law claims remain part of the original federal action. The court also noted that the parties in Herklotz had not sought or obtained a transfer from federal court to state court.

The court stated that the parties had not cited authority supporting the requested relief, and that the court had found none. It noted an alternative procedure: the plaintiff could dismiss the federal claim, seek an order dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice, and then refile those claims in state court. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (d), and Artis v. District of Columbia.

Disposition

The court declined to issue the proposed order. The opinion did not itself dismiss any claim, transfer the action, or direct that the state-law claims be refiled. The order was signed by Judge Maxine Chesney on December 13, 2019.