Hunt v. Gualtieri et al
Filing
32
ORDER: The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida. Thereafter, the Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/7/2017. (DMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KATHLEEN HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:16-cv-509-T-33AAS
BOB GUALTIERI, MAXIM
PHYSICIAN RESOURCES, LLC,
and DR. LUIS A. QUINONES,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the
reasons
that
follow,
the
case
is
remanded
to
the
Sixth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida.
I.
Background
This case was originally filed in state court on May 15,
2015, and was removed to this Court on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction on May 22, 2015, where it was assigned
case number 8:15-cv-1257-T-33EAJ. Pursuant to a joint motion,
15-cv-1257 was bifurcated. Counts I and II of the Amended
Complaint against Defendants Fox and Cruz were severed from
Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, against Defendants
Gualtieri, Maxim Physician Resources, LLC, and Dr. Quinones.
(Doc. # 2). As a result, on March 2, 2016, this case against
1
Gualtieri, Maxim, and Dr. Quinones, 8:16-cv-509-T-33AAS, was
opened,
stayed,
and
administratively
closed
pending
resolution of the claims against Fox and Cruz in the companion
case. (Id.).
After the claims against Fox and Cruz were dismissed
with prejudice and the companion case closed, this case was
reopened. (Doc. # 9). On December 2, 2016, Counts VII and
VIII against Maxim were dismissed, but Counts IV, V, and VI
against Gualtieri and Counts IX and X against Maxim and Dr.
Quinones
remained.
(Doc.
#
22).
Subsequently,
Hunt
and
Gualtieri filed a joint motion to dismiss Counts IV, V, and
VI against Gualtieri with prejudice. (Doc. # 30). Count IV —
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim — was the sole federal claim
remaining. The Court granted Hunt and Gualtieri’s motion on
April 7, 2017. (Doc. # 31).
II.
Discussion
Pursuant to Hunt and Gualtieri’s joint motion, the Court
dismissed the three counts against Gualtieri, including the
Amended Complaint’s sole federal claim. (Doc. # 31). The two
remaining counts, Counts IX and X, are state law claims for
medical negligence against Dr. Quinones and Maxim, over which
the
Court
was
exercising
supplemental
jurisdiction.
The
Eleventh Circuit “has repeatedly said that, when all of the
2
federal claims have been dismissed pretrial, Supreme Court
case law ‘strongly encourages or even requires dismissal of
the state claims.’” Estate of Owens v. GEO Grp., Inc., 660
Fed. Appx. 763, 775 (11th Cir. 2016)(citations omitted).
However, because this case was removed to federal court,
remand rather than dismissal is appropriate. See Cook v.
Sheriff of Monroe Cty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1123 (11th Cir. 2005)
(explaining “[b]ecause this case was originally filed in
state court and removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C
§ 1441, if the district court declines to continue to exercise
supplemental
jurisdiction,
[plaintiff’s]
remaining
claim
should be remanded to state court”); Lewis v. City of St.
Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001)(holding that
after
all
district
federal
court
claims
does
had
been
decline
to
dismissed,
exercise
“[i]f
the
supplemental
jurisdiction, these [state] claims shall be remanded to state
court,
rather
originally
court”).
than
filed
in
dismissed,
state
Accordingly,
supplemental
the
jurisdiction
because
court
and
Court
over
the
this
removed
declines
case
to
to
remaining
was
federal
exercise
state
law
claims, Counts IX and X, and the case is remanded to the Sixth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida.
Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to the Sixth
Judicial
Circuit,
in
and
for
Pinellas
County,
Florida.
Thereafter, the Clerk shall CLOSE THE CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th
day of April, 2017.
4
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?