Carne v. Stanislaus Cnty. Animal Servs. Agency
Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:19-CV-1151 AWI SKO |
Citation | 445 F.Supp.3d 772 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Parties | Bobbie CARNE; All My Tomorrows Pet Rescue, a California Corporation; Eleanor Triboletti; Caroline Grayson, Plaintiffs v. STANISLAUS COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY; Annette Patton, in Her Individual and Official Capacities; Connie Hooker, in Her Individual and Official Capacities; and Does 1-50 Inclusive, Defendants |
Maria E. Minney, Garner & Associates LLP, Willows, CA, for Plaintiffs.
John Robert Whitefleet, Porter Scott, APC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Bobbie Carne and Caroline Grayson are persons who have volunteered or been to the Stanislaus County animal shelter ("Stanislaus Shelter"). Plaintiff All My Tomorrows Pet Rescue is a nonprofit animal rescue organization which has attempted to take animals from the Stanislaus Shelter to prevent their euthanization. Plaintiff Eleanor Trivoletti is the founder and CEO of All My Tomorrows Pet Rescue. Defendant Stanislaus County Animal Services Agency is a political subdivision of the state of California which operates the Stanislaus Shelter. Defendant Annette Patton is the Director and Defendant Connie Hooker is the Animal Control Supervisor of the Stanislaus Shelter.
The Hayden Act is a California law passed in 1998 that regulated the treatment of animals in state run animal shelters, generally required the release of the animals to rescue organizations, and limited the ability of shelters to euthanize animals. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the Hayden Act in the operation of the Stanislaus Shelter by failing to provide appropriate veterinary care, failing to cooperate with animal rescue organizations, and improperly euthanizing animals. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants retaliated against them for expressing criticism and making videos of the conditions inside the Stanislaus Shelter. Defendants allegedly banned Plaintiffs from the Stanislaus Shelter, forbade them from filming inside the Stanislaus Shelter, threatened to remove persons who expressed criticism from a networker email list, called the police on Plaintiff Carne claiming that Plaintiff Carne was harassing staff members, and falsely stated that Plaintiff Carne had threatened to run over Defendant Patton with a bus.
Plaintiffs initially filed suit against Defendants in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. Doc. 1, Ex. B. Plaintiffs are proceeding under five causes of action: (1) liability under Cal. Gov. Code § 815.6 for failure to discharge a duty required by the Hayden Act; (2) petition for a writ of mandate under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 for failure to discharge a duty required by the Hayden Act; (3) injunctive relief under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 526a to stop the illegal expenditure of public funds caused by the failure to comply with the requirements of the Hayden Act; (4) liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of First Amendment rights by a municipality instituting a policy; and (5) liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of First Amendment rights by individuals in their individual capacity. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Doc. 1.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Doc. 4. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand causes of action two and three. Doc. 7. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to amend, but then withdrew that request. Docs. 11 and 18.
"[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy...." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). "A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the state and federal claims would normally be tried together." Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). Section 1367(a) requires courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, while § 1367(c) provides "the exclusive means by which supplemental jurisdiction can be declined by a court." Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1556 (9th Cir. 1994). Under § 1367(c), courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: "(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Courts have "discretion to keep, or decline to keep, [supplemental state law claims] under the conditions set out in § 1367(c)." Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, "a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 174, 118 S.Ct. 523, 139 L.Ed.2d 525 (1997). The doctrine is flexible, "designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values." Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). The propriety of exercising supplemental jurisdiction can be raised by the parties or sua sponte by the courts. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Though the parties do not directly address the case or controversy requirement, the court analyzes the issue sua sponte because the nature of their arguments over remand raises issues of subject matter jurisdiction. The court has an independent obligation to confirm the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004). "A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the state and federal claims would normally be tried together." Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). There does not appear to be one definitive method for determining what qualifies. Instead, courts have various formulations for defining what constitutes a common nucleus of operative fact. Some courts consider: "(1) when the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation; (2) when the facts form a convenient trial unit; and (3) when treating the facts as a unit would conform to the parties' expectations." St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Del Webb Cal. Corp., 2017 WL 7661491, *3, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218342, *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017), citing Apparel Art Int'l, Inc. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 584 (1st Cir. 1995). Other courts consider more generally "whether the claims arise from the same facts, or involve similar occurrences, witnesses or evidence." Landy v. Pettigrew Crewing, Inc., 2019 WL 6245525, at *5, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203458, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019), quoting Hudson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 90 F.3d 451, 455 (11th Cir. 1996). "Even a ‘loose factual connection between the claims is generally sufficient.’ " United States Chess Fed'n, Inc. v. Polgar, 2009 WL 981257, at *3, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31606, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009), quoting Ammerman v. Sween, 54 F.3d 423, 424 (7th Cir. 1995). Additionally, some courts have found that "there is no common nucleus of operative fact if there is no evidentiary overlap whatsoever between the claims." Jiangong Lei v. City of Lynden, 2014 WL 6611382, *4, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162777, *9 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2014), citations and quotations omitted.
The conduct that gives rise to the state law claims is the Stanislaus Shelter's alleged mistreatment of animals. The conduct that gives rise to the federal claims is the Stanislaus Shelter's attempts to stop Plaintiffs when they tried to document and publicize that alleged mistreatment. There is some causal link between these two clumps of actions. Plaintiffs sought to videotape inside the Stanislaus Shelter because of the alleged mistreatment. The evidence that pertains to the state law claims focuses on how the Stanislaus Shelter's treatment of animals (namely veterinary care and decisions to euthanize) and how it cooperated with animal rescue organizations. The evidence related to the federal claim focuses on the attempt to film inside the Stanislaus Shelter, calls to the police about harassment, and a threat to cut off access to an email list. There is minimal overlap of evidence between the two.
In many cases when a Section 1983 claim was found to share a common nucleus of fact with state claims, the wrongful act complained of that gave rise to the claims was fundamentally the same. See, e.g. LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ( ); Donlon v. Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4553932, *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93492, *16 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gastelum v. Five Below, Inc.
......2008);. Bernhardt v. Cnty. of L.A. , 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th. Cir. ... courts,” Carne v. Stanislaus Cnty. Animal Servs. Agency , ......
-
Cross Culture Christian Ctr., Non-Profit Corp. v. Newsom
...... Department – Health and Human Services Agency, California Department of Public Health, Public ......
-
Gastelum v. Cotton on U.S., Inc.
...... sua sponte by the courts,” Carne v. Stanislaus Cnty. Animal Servs. Agency, ......
-
Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
......v. Allapattah Servs.,. Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005); Holden ...Hosp. Auth. of. Randolph Cnty. , 22 F.3d 1559, 1565 (11th Cir. 1994). ... articulated the standard in various ways, Carne v. Stanislaus Cnty. Animal Servs. Agency , ......