*1 Case 6:25-cv-00273-MTK Document 29 Filed 06/17/25 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the use Case No. 6:25-cv-00273-MTK and benefit of PAPICH CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., and PAPICH OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ENDURANCE ASSURANCE
CORPORATION and TRADE WEST
CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendants. KASUBHAI, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs bring contract claims arising from a building and construction dispute. Count One alleges violation of 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq. (“Miller Act”). Compl. ¶¶ 44–54, ECF No. 1. Count Two alleges breach of contract. Compl. ¶¶ 55–63. The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction was based on the federal question raised by Plaintiffs’ claim under the Miller Act. On June 9, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss the Miller Act claim with prejudice and without costs. ECF No. 27. On June 9, 2025, the parties also filed a Stipulated Motion to Remand to State Court. ECF No. 28.
Page 1 — OPINION AND ORDER
Case 6:25-cv-00273-MTK Document 29 Filed 06/17/25 Page 2 of 2 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Miller Act claim is dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. Given the procedural posture of this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim and the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Remand (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. The Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 23 and 24) are DENIED as MOOT. This case is REMANDED to the California State Court, San Luis Obispo County, Civil Division for all further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _____ day of _____________, 20 25 . 17th June
____________________________________ /s/Mustafa T. Kasubhai Mustafa T. Kasubhai (he/him) United States District Judge Page 2 — OPINION AND ORDER