Jim, et al. v. State of Hawaii - Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, et al.
Filing
29
ORDER REMANDING CASE - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 9/18/2018. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court REMANDS the remaining state-law claims to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. (emt, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HAROLD UHANE JIM and
CHRISTOPHER YOUNG,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL NO. 18-00076 DKW-RLP
ORDER REMANDING CASE
vs.
STATE OF HAWAII - DEPARTMENT
OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS,
COUNTY OF HAWAII, HARRY KIM,
JOBIE MASAGATANI, MAKU‘U
FARMERS MARKET ASSOCIATION,
PAULA KEKAHUNA, JOHN DOES 110, JANE DOES 1-10, DOE
PARTNERSHIPS 1-10, DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-10, and DOE
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES 1-10,
Defendants.
On January 23, 2018, Pro Se Plaintiffs Harold Uhane Jim and Christopher
Young filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-2) initiating the instant lawsuit in the Circuit
Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. On February 28, 2018, Defendants
County of Hawai‘i and Harry Kim (“County Defendants”) removed the matter to
this Court. Dkt. No. 1. The County Defendants, and Defendants State of Hawaii
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (the “Department”) and Jobie Masagatani
(collectively “State Defendants”), then filed separate-but-related motions to
dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 6 and 9. On August 8, 2018, the Motions to
Dismiss were granted in part, dismissing with prejudice claims against officialcapacity defendants as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The remaining
claims, pleaded under Section 1983, were dismissed without prejudice, and
Plaintiffs were permitted 30 days’ leave to amend the Complaint. Dkt. No. 24.
The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that failure to file an amended complaint by
September 6, 2018, would result in the dismissal or remand of this action.
On August 6, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth
Circuit, appealing this Court’s June 8, 2018 Order denying the Plaintiffs’ request
for an extension of time and this Court’s June 13, 2018 Order denying Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand.
As stated in the August 8, 2018 Order, the deadline to file the amended
complaint in this Court was September 6, 2018. As of the date of this Order,
plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, nor have they responded to the
August 8 Order in any other fashion. As a result, no federal claims remain.
Because federal claims are no longer at issue, and because no other basis for
original jurisdiction exists, the Court turns to whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). Where, as here, all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the
2
exercise of jurisdiction over the remaining state claims is a matter of the Court’s
discretion. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
Although neither retention nor remand is mandatory, “in the usual case in
which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be
considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v.
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), superseded on other grounds by statute as
recognized in Fent v. Okla. Water Res. Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 2000).
That is precisely the case here. Under the circumstances, neither fairness,
nor judicial economy nor convenience to the parties counsel in favor of retaining
jurisdiction. This case was originally filed by Plaintiffs in state court and is still in
its infancy. This Court has yet to invest the significant time that might counsel in
favor of retaining the state law claims. Moreover, the remaining claims concern
alleged state-law violations and “decisions of state law should be avoided both as a
matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties by procuring for them
a sure-footed reading of applicable law.” United Mine Workers, 383 U.S. at 726.
Having carefully considered the relevant factors, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law causes of action and
remands them to the state court from which they came. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v.
3
HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 637 (2009) (a district court may properly remand a
removed case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court REMANDS the remaining state-law
claims to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii. The Clerk of
Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Circuit Court of the
Third Circuit, State of Hawaii.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 18, 2018 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Jim and Young v. State of Hawaii, et al., CV. NO. 18-00076 DKW-RLP; ORDER
REMANDING CASE
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?