Sudberry et al v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 132

ORDER remanding this case to the Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 2/6/12. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard Sudberry, et al.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
State of Arizona, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 09-00779-PHX-NVW
ORDER

15
16

On April 16, 2009, this case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court.

17

The Complaint alleged a wrongful death claim under A.R.S. § 12-611, et seq., against all

18

Defendants and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Cynthia

19

Mancinelli. On April 21, 2010, the City of Phoenix was granted summary judgment in its

20

favor on the state law claim. On August 19, 2010, all claims and causes of action against

21

the remaining Defendants were dismissed with prejudice upon stipulation. No federal

22

law claims were ever alleged against the City of Phoenix. On January 17, 2012, the

23

formal mandate of the Court of Appeals issued, vacating the grant of summary judgment

24

in favor of the City of Phoenix and remanding the case for further proceedings. On

25

January 19, 2012, the parties were ordered to show cause by February 3, 2012, why this

26

case should not be remanded to the Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to 28

27

U.S.C. § 1367.

28

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, if district courts have original jurisdiction over a civil

2

action, they may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim that forms part of

3

the same case or controversy. It may decline to do so if certain factors are satisfied:

4

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

5

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over
which the district court has original jurisdiction,

6
7

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, or

8

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for
declining jurisdiction.

9
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have
10
been dismissed.
11
What remains for determination by a jury is whether the gross negligence of the
12
Phoenix Police Department contributed to the murder of Plaintiff’s daughter. The Ninth
13
Circuit held that Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find
14
the Phoenix Police Department’s inaction was grossly negligent and a substantial factor in
15
Plaintiff’s daughter’s death. This claim raises important issues of State law, and the state
16
appellate courts would provide authoritative redress on appeal after trial if needed.
17
Moreover, Plaintiff chose the Arizona courts as the initial forum, and the limited
18
resources of this Court, now under a formal Declaration of Judicial Emergency, may be
19
better devoted to cases for which the state court is not an equal forum. See In re Approval
20
of Judicial Emergency Declared in the District of Arizona, 639 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. Jud. C.
21
2011). Nevertheless, judicial economy would favor retention of jurisdiction by this Court
22
if remand would burden a Superior Court judge with duplication of judicial work already
23
done here. That consideration is diminished in this case because this Court concluded its
24
work on this case a year and a half ago. Moreover, the systemic benefit of ultimate state
25
court resolution, in the event of post-trial appeal, of important questions of state law and
26
policy tips the balance strongly in favor of remand.
27
28
-2-

1
2
3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED remanding this case to the Maricopa County
Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
DATED this 6th day of February, 2012.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-