Carnation Building Services, Inc. v. City and County of Denver et al
ORDER denying as moot 73 Motion to Dismiss. This action is remanded to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/16/12.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00703-CMA-MEH
CARNATION BUILDING SERVICES, INC.,
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C) AND FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(B)(1) AND (2)
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City and County of Denver’s
(“Denver”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Carnation Building Services, Inc.’s Second
Amended Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and (2) (Doc. # 73). Although the Court agrees with Defendant that the Court lacks
jurisdiction, the Court will remand this case to state court, and Defendant’s Motion is
therefore denied as moot.
On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint in state court,
alleging various claims against Denver, three named individuals, and the Service
Employees International Union, Local 105 (“SEIU”). (Doc. # 1-1.) On March 21, 2011,
SEIU removed the action from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446. (Doc. # 1.)
After the case was removed, Denver and the three individual defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss on December 3, 2010 (Doc. # 38), which the Court granted on December 29,
2011. (Doc. # 50.) On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,
alleging claims against Denver and SEIU. (Doc. # 64.) On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff
filed a stipulation for dismissal of SEIU, and this Court subsequently dismissed all
claims against SEIU. (Doc. ## 70, 72.) With the dismissal of SEIU from the action,
all federal claims have been dismissed.
The Court has discretion to dismiss or remand the case upon dismissal of all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Cf. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484
U.S. 343 (1988) (holding that district courts have discretion to dismiss or remand cases
to state court after federal claims have been dismissed and only pendant state law
claims remain), superseded by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (enacted 1990) (“[t]he
district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Because
all of the federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
When determining whether to remand or dismiss, the Court may look to factors
including judicial economy, procedural convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity
to the States. See Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 353; see also White v. Denny’s Inc.,
918 F.Supp. 1418, 1430 (D.Colo. 1996) (remanding state law claims to state court
after dismissal of the federal claims, citing judicial economy and fairness to litigants).
A dismissal, as opposed to a remand, would require the parties to refile the case in
state court, adding expense while unnecessarily delaying the resolution of the pending
state law claim. For these reasons, judicial economy and fairness to the litigants weigh
in favor of remand over dismissal. Therefore, since the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim, the Court remands
the case to the District Court for the City and County of Denver. As such, the instant
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied as moot.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that this action be REMANDED to
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant=s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. # 73) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is further ORDERED that the parties shall bear their own fees and costs.
BY THE COURT:
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
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?