JOHNSON et al v. LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al

Filing 8

ORDER remanding case and finding as moot 3 Motion for More Definite Statement. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 1/28/2015. (aks) Modified text on 1/28/2015 (rlw).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION KENNETH JOHNSON, JACQUELYN JOHNSON, and Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-158 (HL) v. LOWNDES COUNTY EDUCATION, et al., BOARD OF Defendants. ORDER On January 14, 2015, this Court held a hearing to address Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 3) as well as whether it should remand this action and a companion case, Kenneth Johnson, et al. v. Lowndes County Board of Education, et al., 7:13-cv-157 (hereinafter referred to as “the First Action”), to state court. Bafflingly, Plaintiffs have never moved to remand this case, but a sua sponte review of the complaint shows that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Defendants’ only basis for removing this case was their assertion that this action should be consolidated with the First Action, which they had earlier removed from state court, because both actions arose out of the same facts and largely involved the same parties. The complaint in this case does not allege any federal claims, but Defendants asked the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. However, the Court is not in a position to do so given that it has already remanded the First Action back to state court. There being no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) this case is remanded to the Superior Court of Lowndes County, Georgia. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is moot. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of January, 2015. s/ Hugh Lawson________________ HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE scr 2

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?