Theodore J Hogan & Associates LLC et al v. Arizona Corporation Commission et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting the United States of America's 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Waller (substituted by the United States); granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Remand to State Court; the Clerk shall remand the remainder of this action to the Superior court of Arizona in Maricopa County; the court notes for action by the state court that an LLC cannot represent itself but must be represented by counsel. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/4/11.(REW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Theodore J. Hogan & Associates LLC;) Theodore J. Hogan; Christina L. Damitio,) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Arizona Corporation Commission; John) Curtis Bradshaw; Ronald Baran; Melissa) D. Deegan; Elaine Roulidis; Lyle Rogers;) ) United States of America, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV 11-01530-PHX-FJM ORDER 17 18 The court has before it defendant United States of America's motion to dismiss for 19 lack of jurisdiction (doc. 9), plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant Waller (doc. 10), 20 plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court (doc. 11), and the United States of America's 21 response to plaintiffs' motions (doc. 12). The remaining defendants did not respond. 22 Plaintiffs originally brought this appeal of an administrative decision by the Arizona 23 Corporation Commission in the Superior Court of Arizona in Cococino County. Plaintiffs 24 contend that there were irregularities in the administrative proceedings, the administrative 25 law judge improperly admitted evidence, and excessive penalties were incorrectly computed. 26 The action was transferred to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County in June 27 2011. Joseph Dale Waller, named in the original complaint as a defendant, was served on 28 1 July 5, 2011. Waller removed the case to federal court on August 4, 2011 (doc. 1), pursuant 2 to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). On August 12, 2011, the United States gave notice to substitute 3 itself as defendant for defendant Waller (doc. 7). Plaintiffs' filed a motion to dismiss 4 defendant Waller on August 16, 2011, indicating that discovery had shown that Waller was 5 not a proper defendant to this action (doc. 10). 6 As the United States substituted itself as the defendant for Waller, the United States 7 now requests that we dismiss plaintiffs' complaint against the United States. As both 8 plaintiffs and the United States agree that the United States is not a proper party, we dismiss 9 all claims against defendant United States of America. 10 With the United States dismissed from this action, plaintiffs now seek remand to state 11 court, arguing that no federal question remains. The United States concurs that the action 12 should be remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County upon dismissal of 13 the case against the United States. Once we dismiss all claims over which we had original 14 jurisdiction, we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 15 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the ordinary case where all federal-law claims are dismissed, 16 "the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial 17 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise 18 jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 19 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 20 350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619 n.7 (1988)). We find that the balance of factors in this case 21 points towards declining to adjudicate plaintiffs' state administrative law claims. 22 23 24 25 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the United States of America's motion to dismiss (doc. 9). IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant Waller (substituted by the United States) on grounds of mootness (doc. 10). 26 IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to remand (doc. 11). 27 The clerk shall remand the remainder of this action to the Superior Court of 28 Arizona in Maricopa County. -2- 1 2 3 The court notes for action by the state court that an LLC cannot represent itself but must be represented by counsel. DATED this 4th day of October, 2011. 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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?