Patterson v. Maricopa, County of

Filing 16

ORDER that Plaintiff Maurice Patterson's Motion to Amend the Pleading, (Doc. 14 ), is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to state court. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the Maricopa County Superior Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 11 ), is denied as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/23/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(KMG)

1
2

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Maurice Patterson,

No. CV-13-01402-PHX-GMS
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

ORDER

Maricopa County,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Maurice Patterson’s Motion to Amend the
Pleading, (Doc. 14). For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the Motion.

16

Patterson filed an action against Defendant Maricopa County (the “County”) in the

17

Maricopa County Superior Court on July 1, 2013, alleging a state law negligence claim

18

and violations of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,

19

and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1-1 (State Court Complaint) at 17.) On July 12, the

20

County removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(b) based

21

on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 2.)

22

After removing the case to this Court, the County moved to dismiss the Complaint

23

with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) In response, Patterson first moved

24

to amend his Complaint to remove the federal claims on July 29. (Doc. 9.) But the Court

25

denied Patterson’s Motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 which required him

26

to include a redlined version of the amended pleading with the Motion. (Doc. 12.)

27

Patterson again moves to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 14). The proposed

28

amendments delete the federal law claims and allege additional state law claims arising

1

under the Arizona Constitution. (See Doc. 14 at 3–4.) Along with his Motion to Amend,

2

Patterson requests the Court to remand the action back to state court or, in the alternative,

3

allow him to voluntarily dismiss it without prejudice so that he may refile the action in

4

state court. (Id. at 1.)

5

A plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of

6

serving it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). After 21 days, a plaintiff may only amend a

7

complaint with the court’s permission. The court “should freely give leave when justice

8

so requires.” Id. 15(a)(2). Patterson first moved to amend within 21 days of the action’s

9

removal to this Court but did not provide a redlined version of the Complaint. Because

10

Patterson has not yet amended his Complaint and provides his proposed amendments

11

with the current Motion, the Court will grant leave to amend.

12

The County contends that the Court had federal question jurisdiction over the

13

action at the time of removal; therefore, it requests the Court to exercise supplemental

14

jurisdiction over the state law claims and consider their merits even if the federal law

15

claims are now discarded. “In determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based

16

upon a federal question, the court must look to the complaint as of the time the removal

17

petition was filed. Jurisdiction is based on the complaint as originally filed and not as

18

amended.” Abada v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002)

19

(quoting O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis

20

in original).

21

Because Patterson alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights in his

22

original Complaint, the Court had jurisdiction at the time of removal. The Complaint as

23

amended, however, does not state such claims. A district court may decline to exercise

24

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has

25

original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is also in the interest of “economy,

26

convenience, fairness, and comity,” Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995),

27

that Patterson’s state law claims arising under the Arizona Constitution be adjudicated in

28

state court.

-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Maurice Patterson’s Motion to

1
2

Amend the Pleading, (Doc. 14), is granted.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to state court. The

4

Clerk of Court is directed to remand this action back to the Maricopa County Superior

5

Court.

6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County’s Motion to
Dismiss, (Doc. 11), is denied as moot.
Dated this 23rd day of September, 2013.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-