Citizens for a Clean Southwest Alabama et al v. Conecuh County Commission et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING Plfs' 41 Motion to Remand & 42 Motion to Stay Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation & for Expedited Ruling as set out, & this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Conecuh County. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 11/16/2011. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
)
)
CITIZENS FOR A CLEAN
)
SOUTHWEST ALABAMA, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CONECUH COUNTY COMMISSION, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-342-CG-C

ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for Remand (Doc. 41) and
plaintiffs’ motion to Stay Filing of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 42). Under the circumstances, the
court finds it appropriate to grant plaintiffs’ motions.
On June 27, 2011, and July 15, 2011, defendants filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs’ federal due process claims in Counts IV and V of plaintiffs’
Complaint. (Docs. 3, 10). On November 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered
his Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiffs’ federal due process
claims in Counts IV and V be dismissed without prejudice and that plaintiffs’
remaining state claims be remanded to the Circuit Court of Conecuh
County. (Doc. 39). Objections to the Report and Recommendation are due by
November 21, 2011, and then the parties would have up to 14 days thereafter to file a

reply. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2) 4. However, on November 10, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Dismissal of their federal due process claims in Counts IV and V. (Doc. 40).
Plaintiffs now move to remand the remaining state claims, and believe this obviates
the need for objections and replies to the report and recommendation.
“Congress has conferred upon district courts the discretion to ‘decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) [of 28
U.S.C. § 1367] if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction.’” Sanders v. Horton, 2009 WL 792549, *1 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2009),
quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (other citations omitted). Where § 1367(a) applies,
“considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity may influence
the court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Baggett v. First Nat’l
Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The
court finds that in cases such as this “[s]tate courts, not federal courts, should be the
final arbiters of state law.” Baggett, supra, 117 F.3d at 1353 (citation omitted).
The court notes that defendant, Conecuh Woods LLC, stated the following in its
motion to dismiss:
If the Court dismisses the federal claims, the State-law claims
should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) or supplement jurisdiction
declined and the claims remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3).
(Doc. 10, p. 3). Thus, at least one defendant advocates remand of the remaining state
law claims.
In light of the above, the court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. Considerations of judicial
2

economy, convenience, fairness and comity call for the state court to be the final
arbitrator of the remaining claims in this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (Doc. 41) and
plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Filing of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 42) are GRANTED and this case is
hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Conecuh County.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of November, 2011.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3