Barker v. All Copy Products LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court 11 is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to Maricopa County Superior Court. ORDER that the fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss 16 shall remain pending before the Superior Court. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 12/20/12. (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Remand)(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

No. CV-12-01787-PHX-JAT

Anthony P. Barker,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

12
13
14

All Copy Products, LLC; Joseph Blazier
and Jane Doe Blazier, husband and wife,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 11).
The Court now rules on the Motion.

18

On April 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court.

19

(Doc. 1 at 8). The Complaint contained both federal and state law claims. On August 20,

20

2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question

21

subject matter jurisdiction. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

22

(Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contained only state law claims. The following

23

day, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 11).

24

In his motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that, because his Complaint no longer

25

contains any federal law claims, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case

26

must be remanded. The Parties agree that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case.

27

Further, Defendants agree that the Court does not currently have subject matter

28

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is likely

1
2
3
4

to again amend his Complaint to assert federal claims, and, thus, to save the time and
effort involved in another removal action, the Court should not remand this case unless
Plaintiff agrees that, after remand, he will not try to amend his Complaint again to
reassert federal law claims.
28 U.S.C.A. section 1447(c) provides that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447. Both Parties agree that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court cannot deny a motion to remand based on the hypothetical
assertion that the Court may, at some time in the future, have subject matter jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s claims. Further, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has
no power to order Plaintiff to assert whether or not he intends to assert federal claims in
the future.
Based on the foregoing,

13

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 11) is

14
15
16
17
18
19

granted. The Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to Maricopa County Superior
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16)
shall remain pending before the Superior Court.
Dated this 20th day of December, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-