ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO STATE COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 41

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is a "Joint Stipulation," filed December 11, 2019, by which the parties seek an order dismissing plaintiff's sole federal claim and directing the remaining claims, all of which are alleged under state law, be "removed to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court." (See Joint Stip. at 3:25-26.) By order filed November 7, 2019, the Court denied the parties' previous request for such transfer because the "parties ha[d] not cited any authority for such procedure." (See Doc. No. 40.)

In the instant stipulation, the parties, citing Herklotz v. Parkinson, 848 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2017), assert there "no longer [is] subject matter jurisdiction in federal court." (See Joint Stip. at 3:20-21.) The pleadings addressed in Herklotz are distinguishable from those presented here, see Herklotz, 848 F.3d at 897-98 (holding district court lost jurisdiction over state law Crossclaim after defendant "opted to sever" it, thereby creating "entirely new and independent case"; distinguishing case in which federal claim is dismissed and "pendant [state law] claims remain part of the original action"), and, in any event, the parties therein neither sought nor obtained a transfer from federal to state court. See id. at 896.

Consequently, the parties having failed to cite any authority supporting their requested relief, and the Court having located none, the Court declines to issue the proposed order. Nothing herein, however, is intended to preclude plaintiff from dismissing his federal claim, seeking thereafter an order dismissing his state law claims without prejudice, and then refiling those state law claims in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)&(d); see also Artis v. D.C., 138 S.Ct. 594 (2018).

IT IS SO ORDERED.