STIPULATION FOR REMAND

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

STIPULATION

1. The facts contained in this stipulation are not intended to be binding. The parties are agreeing to certain facts to show that the case should be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

2. Plaintiff commenced this action on or about January 18, 2011, as Case No. 111CV192016, in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The suit alleged, among other things, a foreclosure action related to property that the United States has an interest, and asks the court to determine that plaintiff's interests are ahead of the United States.

3. Because of the dispute regarding whether plaintiff's interests were ahead or superior to the government, the United States removed the case from state court as there was a federal claim related to the tax lien on the subject property. The action was removed by defendant the United States of America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1444.

4. Since the removal was filed, counsel for the United States has discussed this action with plaintiffs' counsel. The priority of the parties' respective interests in the property would have been the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, which is now undisputed. In addition, in discussing the case, it appears as though there may be significant or numerous state law issues, while the parties have reached a tentative agreement regarding the sole federal issue. It is now clear that the state law issues are more predominant and the United States will likely to stipulate to the outcome and judgment related to the foreclosure.

5. Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that this case should be remanded the Santa Clara County Superior Court, and any pending hearing in this Court should be vacated.

6. This United States shall serve a copy of this stipulation on every other party to this action.

ORDER GRANTING REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT

Based on the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that the issues in this case arise predominantly under state law. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Bryant v. Adventist Health System/West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding where district court grants judgment on federal claims, district court, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). Further, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that "substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer forthwith the instant order, at the following address:

IT IS SO ORDERED.