Woodbridge Condominium Association, Inc. v. Ibara et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Joint Motion to Remand Case to State Court. This case shall be remanded to the District Court for Pitkin County, Colorado, where it was filed as Case No. 11CV273.By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/16/2012.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03317-PAB-MJW
WOODBRIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado
not-for-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
RON IBARA,
ELIZABETH E. GRINDLAY, and
TOM OKEN, as Public Trustee of Pitkin County,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Remand [Docket No. 9]
filed by plaintiff Woodbridge Condominium Association, Inc. (“Woodbridge”) and
defendant Tom Oken, as Public Trustee of Pitkin County.1 Woodbridge requests that
the Court remand this case to the District Court for Pitkin County, Colorado. Docket No.
9 at 1.
On November 1, 2011, Woodbridge filed this action in the District Court for Pitkin
County, Colorado. Docket No. 1-1 at 9. Woodbridge sought, inter alia, judicial
foreclosure of a homeowner lien. Id. On December 19, 2011, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1444, the United States removed the case to this Court. Docket No. 1. The United
States sought a declaration as to its priority over other liens attached to the property at

1

Woodbridge, Tom Oken, and the United States are the only parties to have
appeared in this case. Docket No. 6 at 2, ¶ 6.

issue in this case. See Docket No. 1. On March 12, 2012, after a stipulation filed by
the parties, the Court dismissed the United States from the current action [Docket No.
7]. Given that the United States is no longer a party to the present action, Woodbridge
requests that the Court remand this case because the Court no longer has subject
matter jurisdiction over this action. Docket No. 9 at 2.
Contrary to Woodbridge’s assertion, the dismissal of the United States as a party
does not necessarily prevent this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the remaining
state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court has discretion to exercise
jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. As a general proposition, “[p]endent
jurisdiction is exercised on a discretionary basis, keeping in mind considerations of
judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants.” Bauchman v. West High
School, 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997). In the specific context of § 1367(c)(3),
however, the Tenth Circuit has concluded that, “[i]f federal claims are dismissed before
trial, leaving only issues of state law, ‘the federal court should decline the exercise of
jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.’” Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon
University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The reason courts should dismiss such
claims is that “‘[n]otions of comity and federalism demand that a state court try its own
lawsuits, absent compelling reasons to the contrary.’” Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d
1213, 1230 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 669 (10th Cir. 1995)).
A court’s exercise of discretion, it would seem, is limited to determining whether
compelling reasons justify retaining jurisdiction. See Brooks, 614 F.3d at 1229
(reaffirming that courts have discretion to determine whether to exercise supplemental

2

jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), but reversing the district court’s grant of summary
judgment on state law claims); Endris v. Sheridan County Police Dep’t, 415 F. App’x 34,
36 (10th Cir. 2011) (“any state-law claims for assault and battery or mental and
emotional injury were inappropriate subjects for the exercise of pendent jurisdiction
where all federal claims had been dismissed.” ); but see Henderson v. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 412 F. App’x 74, 79 (10th Cir. 2011) (court “should consider ‘the
values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide
whether to exercise jurisdiction’” when determining whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction).
Where, as here, the United States, the only party requesting a federal forum, has
been dismissed as a party and defendant Tom Oken does not oppose the remand, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Remand Case to State Court [Docket No. 9]
is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that this case shall be remanded to the District Court for Pitkin
County, Colorado, where it was filed as Case No. 11CV273.

DATED March 16, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
3