Acosta v. California Highway Patrol, No. 5:2018cv00958 - Document 87 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERING ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL 74 , GRANTING THE PARTIES REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL 64 ; SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERING ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT 80 , GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT 66 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 09/23/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CRISTOBAL ACOSTA, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 Case No. 18-cv-00958-BLF ORDER SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERING ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL (ECF 74), GRANTING THE PARTIES’ REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL (ECF 64); SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERING ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT (ECF 80), GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT (ECF 66) 14 15 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Remand Entire Action to State 16 Court (Reply, ECF 79) and as discussed during the September 17, 2019 case management 17 conference, the Court has sua sponte RECONSIDERED its Order Denying The Parties’ Request to 18 Continue Trial (ECF 74) and now GRANTS the parties’ request to Continue Trial and Related Dates 19 at ECF 64. 20 RECONSIDERED its Order Denying Motion to Remand (ECF 80) and now GRANTS Plaintiff’s 21 Motion to Remand Entire Action to State Court at ECF 66. Trial dates are hereby VACATED and 22 the case is REMANDED to state court. 23 I. In light of the now-continued trial date, the Court has further sua sponte BACKGROUND 24 This case arises from a police shooting incident. Plaintiff, Mr. Acosta, was sitting in his car 25 at the side of the road with a mechanical breakdown that caused “backfiring.” Two California 26 Highway Patrol (“CHP”) officers—responding to an on-duty CHP sergeant’s report of an explosion 27 from the car or possible “shots fired”—opened fire, believing that the loud sounds coming from 28 Plaintiff’s car were gunfire. One of the bullets struck Plaintiff, who was in fact not armed and had United States District Court Northern District of California 1 committed no crime. Plaintiff sued the CHP and three CHP officers (collectively, “Defendants”). 2 On September 6, 2018, this Court issued a Case Management Order, setting trial to begin on 3 September 30, 2019—six months later than the trial date requested by the parties.1 ECF 34. In the 4 same order, the Court set the final pretrial conference on August 22, 2019. Id. 5 Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2019, seeking judgment 6 in their favor on all claims. See ECF 45. The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for 7 summary judgment on May 2, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the Court issued its Order Granting in Part 8 and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s 9 federal claims, leaving only Plaintiff’s state-law claims for battery and negligence. Summary 10 Judgment Order, ECF 58. Plaintiff has chosen not to appeal the Court’s Summary Judgment Order. 11 ECF 66 at 3. 12 Per the Court’s Standing Order re Civil Jury Trials, the parties were required to file certain 13 documents at least 14 days before the final pretrial conference. When the parties failed to file those 14 papers, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why sanctions against both sides should not issue. 15 ECF 63. On the same day, August 16, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting the trial 16 to be continued to June 3, 2020. ECF 64 at 1. In justifying their request, the parties explained that 17 their focus had been on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and efforts to settle the 18 litigation. ECF 64-1 at 2. Therefore, “in an effort to reduce the costs of litigation to all parties and 19 the burden on the Court,” the parties had agreed to postpone discovery and other litigation efforts 20 pending the Court’s decision on summary judgment and the outcome of the settlement conference 21 held on August 15, 2019. Id. 22 A few days later, the parties filed timely responses to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. See 23 ECF 67; ECF 68. On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the Entire Action to State 24 Court. ECF 66. Three days later, on August 22, 2019, the Court held its final pretrial conference. 25 After the pretrial conference, the Court discharged the Order to Show Cause based on the parties’ 26 written responses and statements at the hearing. ECF 74. In the same order, the Court denied the 27 28 1 Joint Case Management Statement at 6. ECF 31. 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 parties’ joint request to Continue Trial and Related Dates, finding that the parties had failed to show 2 diligence and therefore did not demonstrate good cause to continue the trial date. Id. 3 On September 3, 2019, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for remand. ECF 78. 4 Plaintiff replied on the same day. Reply, ECF 79. On September 12, 2019, the Court inadvertently 5 issued an on order denying the motion to remand before reviewing Plaintiff’s Reply and the 6 accompanying declaration. Plaintiff promptly brought this error to the Court’s attention and the 7 Court immediately set a case management conference. The case management conference was held 8 on September 17, 2019. ECF 83. 9 In the Reply, Plaintiff explains that counsel for the parties jointly made a miscalculation – 10 they decided to delay expert disclosures until after the Court issued its Summary Judgment Order, 11 based on the “prediction” that “the ruling would result in an appeal and/or a remand of the state-law 12 claims,” meaning that in either scenario, trial would not go forward in September 2019. Reply at 3. 13 At the September 17, 2019 conference, counsel for both parties confirmed the substance of this 14 conversation. As it is so often the case, what followed did not match parties’ “prediction.” The 15 Court granted summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s federal claims, but not the state-law claims of 16 negligence and battery. Plaintiff chose not to appeal the Summary Judgment Order. Also, the 17 settlement conference held before Judge DeMarchi did not result in settlement. Consequently, mere 18 weeks before trial, the parties found themselves with no expert discovery. 19 At the September 17, 2019 conference, counsel explained that after the Court’s pretrial 20 conference, both parties diligently worked to retain expert witnesses, prepare expert reports, and 21 take depositions. Despite those efforts, however, Plaintiff’s expert witness on the issue of damages, 22 a neuropsychologist, is unavailable to provide live testimony at trial. Instead, the jury is to watch a 23 video of the expert witness’s deposition. For their part, Defendants have retained their expert 24 witnesses, prepared reports (at extra cost due to the rushed schedule), and are prepared to present 25 live expert testimony at trial. 26 II. PARTIES’ REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL 27 The Court has now reviewed Plaintiff’s Reply (and the accompanying declaration) and heard 28 the parties’ positions at the September 17, 2019 case management conference. Upon further 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 reflection, the Court finds that a rigid application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 would result 2 in avoidable and unnecessary prejudice to Plaintiff. It is settled that district courts have broad 3 discretion to control the course of litigation under Rule 16. Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 4 616 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, exercising its broad discretion on scheduling issues, the Court finds that 5 continuing the trial date is appropriate under the facts of this case. 6 Although the parties admittedly were not diligent in preparing for trial scheduled to begin 7 on September 30, 2019, the Court finds that this lack of diligence was the result of a mutual, albeit 8 incorrect, assumption by both parties that regardless of the outcome of the Court’s Summary 9 Judgment Order, trial would not move forward in this Court on September 30, 2019. See Reply at 10 3. Consequently, despite the parties’ diligent efforts to prepare witnesses and evidence for trial after 11 the Court’s pre-trial conference, Plaintiff was unable to secure his expert witness’s live testimony 12 at trial. The Court finds that absence of live testimony on the critical issue of damages would be 13 prejudicial to Plaintiff. The Court notes and appreciates Defendants’ diligent efforts in retaining 14 their expert witnesses at great expense. However, on balance, continuing the trial date is in the 15 interest of justice. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request to Continue Trial and 17 Related Dates and VACATES the trial dates. Typically, at this juncture, the Court would set a new 18 trial date. However, the Court’s earliest available date for trial is in mid-2022. Under these 19 circumstances, as discussed below, the Court finds that this case should be remanded to the state 20 court and therefore declines to set a new trial date. 21 22 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND THE ENTIRE ACTION TO STATE COURT 23 Because the Court has now granted the parties’ request to continue trial and the first available 24 trial date in this Court is more two years away, the Court declines to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. “A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental 26 jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Sanford v. 27 MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “‘[I]n the 28 usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 2 comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.’” 3 Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). Under the current 4 circumstances of this case, the Court perceives no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 5 Plaintiff’s state law claims. 6 In its Order Denying Motion to Remand to State Court, the Court found that judicial 7 economy, convenience, and fairness weighed heavily against remand because trial was set to begin 8 in two weeks and remand to state court would have resulted in undue delay. ECF 80 at 4-5 (“The 9 case could be delayed up to two years as it waits in line for a trial date in a busy state trial court.”). 10 Circumstances, however, have changed because the parties’ request to continue trial has been 11 granted and this Court’s earliest available trial date is in mid-2022. 12 The balance of factors, under this new set of facts, weighs against exercising discretionary 13 supplemental jurisdiction. Judicial economy factor is now neutral. It is true that the state court will 14 have to familiarize itself with the facts and issues in this case. However, two years from now, this 15 Court will also have to re-familiarize itself with the case. Considerations of convenience and 16 fairness are also neutral under the circumstances. While the parties must necessarily duplicate some 17 of the recent weeks’ pretrial efforts, the parties—who admittedly have hastily been preparing their 18 evidence and witnesses for trial—would benefit from the additional time to present a well-prepared 19 case to the jury. Considerations of comity remain unchanged under the new circumstances. 20 Plaintiff’s remaining claims are based upon California law and comity weighs in favor of allowing 21 California courts to rule on state-law issues. The balance of factors at this juncture points in favor 22 of remanding the entire case to state court. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, 25 County of Santa Clara. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment consistent with this order and to 26 close the file. 27 28 5 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 5 Dated: September 23, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
