ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint filed on September 13, 2010, the motion to dismiss filed by defendants on October 6, 2010 (Docket Nos. 7-9, "Motion to Dismiss"), the motion for leave to amend and proposed First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiffs on December 18, 2010 (Dockets Nos. 16-17, "Motion to Amend"), the motion for sanctions filed by plaintiffs on March 2, 2011 (Docket No. 29, "Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion"), the opposition and reply briefing (including exhibits) filed by the parties in connection with the foregoing motions, all of the records herein, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and plaintiffs' "Response" to the Report, with accompanying Exhibits.1 The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated in writing.

Among other things, the Magistrate Judge concluded that plaintiff's state law claims should be dismissed, because plaintiffs failed to allege timely compliance with the claims filing provisions of the California Tort Claims Act ("CTCA") and apparently could not do so, given their concession, at a December 8, 2010 hearing, that no CTCA claim had been presented. In their Response, plaintiffs allege that, after they received the Report, they concluded that they had complied with the CTCA, because on an unspecified date, they "timely filed a complaint with the Judicial Council that substantially complied with" the requirements of the CTCA. (Response at 67.) Plaintiffs have attached to the Exhibits a declaration by plaintiff Ronald R. Shea, who states that he "filed a complaint with the Judicial Council vis-à-vis the referenced matter within the six-month window granted under the California Tort Claims Act." Plaintiff Shea has attached to his declaration a copy of a May 24, 2011 letter from Staff Counsel Cynthia Dorfman at the Commission on Judicial Performance for the State of California, which references a pending complaint filed by plaintiffs.

Under the CTCA, claims against a judicial entity and its employees for money or damages must be presented in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 (California Government Code § 900 et seq.) and Chapter 2 (California Government Code § 910 et seq.) of the California Government Code. See California Government Code § 905.7. The pertinent provision for the presentation of claims to a judicial branch entity is California Government Code § 915(c). Section 915(c)(1) provides that, when a claim is asserted against "a superior court or a judge, court executive officer, or trial court employee," it shall be delivered or mailed to the "court executive officer" of the pertinent superior court. Plaintiffs' submission of a complaint to the Judicial Council does not comply with Section 915(c)(1). Thus, the new evidence submitted with the Response does not affect the correctness of the Report's conclusion regarding the CTCA and plaintiff's state law claims.

Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and concludes that this action must be dismissed. For the reasons set forth in the Report, plaintiffs' federal claims must be dismissed without leave to amend. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs had complied with the CTCA, because the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction are being dismissed, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the numerous state law claims plaintiffs have alleged. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;

(2) The Motion to Amend is DENIED;

(3) Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion is DENIED;

(4) Defendants' request for sanctions set forth in their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion is GRANTED, and sanctions in the amount of $2,760 are imposed against plaintiff Ronald R. Shea;

(5) The Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and

(6) This action is dismissed as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment herein on the parties.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.