Moussa v. Pima, County of
Filing
26
ORDER that the legal conclusions from Magistrate Judge Kimmins' R&R (Doc. 23 ) are ACCEPTED this Court is without subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further Ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 15 ) is GRANTED. It is further Ordered that Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is DENIED as Defendant's motion to remand was not objectively unreasonable due to Plaintiff's reference (but not reliance upon) federal law incorporated into a state statut e. It is further Ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4 ) is TERMINATED on CM/ECF as "moot." It is further Ordered that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment and close this civil action. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 4/25/2018. (MFR)
1
WO
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
6
7
Sam E Moussa,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
No. CV-17-00523-TUC-CKJ (LCK)
ORDER
v.
County of Pima,
Defendant.
12
13
In this matter, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand which Magistrate Judge Kimmins
14
recommends this Court grant. See Docs. 15 (Motion to Remand) and 23 (Report &
15
Recommendation). The Court has reviewed all of the pertinent filings in this case,
16
including Defendant’s Notice of Removal, Response to Plaintiff’s motion, and Objections
17
to the Report & Recommendation (R&R). See Docs. 1, 17, and 24.
18
Defendant has objected to eight specific statements in the “Factual and Procedural
19
Background” of the R&R and further requests that the Court modify the report to clarify
20
a matter of state law. See Doc. 24.
21
A District Court reviews objected to portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and
22
recommendations under a de novo standard. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
23
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge's
24
findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise”)
25
(emphasis in original).
26
The R&R does not misstate the law – nor does Defendant contend that it does. See
27
generally, Doc. 24. Once a federal court determines that it doesn’t have subject-matter
28
jurisdiction, it must remand the case. See Polo v. Innoventions Int'l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193,
1
1196 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Remand is the correct remedy because a failure of federal subject-
2
matter jurisdiction means [] that the federal courts have no power to adjudicate the
3
matter.”); see also, Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir.
4
1997) (holding that remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “is mandatory, not
5
discretionary”).
6
Defendants do not object to the R&R’s conclusion that this Court lacks the
7
subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Instead, Defendant objects to Judge
8
Kimmins’ expressing Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true for purposes of adjudicating
9
the motion to remand, and requests this Court modify the R&R to “clarify that the
10
allegations are disputed.” See Doc. 24 at pg. 2.
11
However, once a federal court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, further inquiry
12
into the matter must stop. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment
13
it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
14
remanded.”); see also, Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422,
15
431 (2007) (clarifying that when a federal court resolves a case “short of reaching the
16
merits ... the court will not ‘proceed at all’ to an adjudication of the cause”).
17
This Court undisputedly lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this
18
case. See Doc. 23 (explaining that Plaintiff raises no claim that creates Article III
19
jurisdiction). Therefore, no further inquiry or explication on the facts or merits of
20
Plaintiff’s claim is warranted. See Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547 U.S. 633, 640
21
(2006) (expounding Congress’s policy of quickly remanding cases where a federal court
22
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
23
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the legal conclusions from Magistrate Judge
24
Kimmins’ R&R (Doc. 23) are ACCEPTED — this Court is without subject-matter
25
jurisdiction.
26
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) is
GRANTED.
28
-2-
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is
2
DENIED as Defendant’s motion to remand was not objectively unreasonable due to
3
Plaintiff’s reference (but not reliance upon) federal law incorporated into a state statute.
4
See Doc. 23 at pg. 8 (citing Gardner v. UICI, 508 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2007)).1
5
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is
TERMINATED on CM/ECF as “moot.”
7
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment and close
this civil action.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a certified copy of
10
this Order to Pima County Superior Court.
11
Dated this 25th day of April, 2018.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
See further, Prior v. Ryan, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012)
(acknowledging that the District Court reviews unobjected-to-portions of an R&R for
clear error).
-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?