Holland v. Ace Hardware Corporation et al
Filing
52
ORDER: Plaintiff's joint motion to dismiss Defendant Northrop Grumman (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 5/31/2013. (mab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARIUS HOLLAND, as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Josephus
Holland, and DARIUS HOLLAND,
Individually
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION et
al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 13-136-GPM
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on a joint motion to dismiss filed by Plaintiff Darius
Holland Special Administrator of the Estate of Josephus Holland and Darius Holland in his
individual capacity (Doc. 51). On November 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit
Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois (Doc. 2). Defendant, United
Technologies Corporation (“UTC”) removed the case here to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446, which is often
referred to as federal officer subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 2).
On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff moved this Court to dismiss UTC without prejudice
pursuant to stipulation between Plaintiff and UTC (Doc. 23). The Court granted this motion
(Doc. 25). Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss also asked the Court to remand the case to state court if
the Court granted the dismissal of UTC (Doc. 23). Plaintiff reasoned that once UTC was no
Page 1 of 3
longer a party to this matter, federal subject matter jurisdiction ceased and the desire for a federal
forum became moot (Doc. 23).
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, but allowed the remaining Defendants
additional time to lodge objections to the motion to remand (Doc. 25). Defendant Northrop
Grumman (“Northrop”) timely lodged an objection to Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 36).
Northrop claimed that federal officer subject matter jurisdiction had not ceased because Northrop
is also a person under the Federal Officer Removal Statute (Doc. 36). Plaintiff filed a response
in opposition, claiming that since Northrop failed to timely join UTC’s notice of removal or file
its own notice of removal, the opportunity for Northrop to avail itself of federal officer subject
matter jurisdiction had been lost (Doc. 40).
The matter was set for oral argument, but due to some confusion, oral argument was
rescheduled for June 10, 2013 (Doc. 49).
Now, Plaintiff and Northrop have reached an
agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 41 to dismiss Northrop from this action without
prejudice (Doc. 51). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Northrop from this case without
prejudice (Doc. 51) is GRANTED.
Following the same logic previously articulated in its motion to dismiss UTC (Doc. 23),
Plaintiff now seeks again to have this case remanded to state court (Doc. 51). The Court notes
that, “jurisdiction once properly invoked is not lost by developments after a suit is filed . . . .”
Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2010). Moreover, when
all the federal claims that authorized removal drop out of the case before trial, under 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3) it is within the Court’s discretion whether to remand the existing state-law claims to
state court. See Helms v. Atrium Health Care & Rehab. Ctr. of Cahokia, LLC, Civil No. 10-547-
Page 2 of 3
GPM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106363 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2010). Without delving into the merits of
Northrop’s objection to remand, once UTC was dismissed, the reasoning employed in Helms
became relevant in this case.
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for remand is appropriate; the motion to remand
to state court (Doc. 51) is GRANTED. Northrop was the only Defendant to object to Plaintiff’s
initial motion to remand. Northrop is no longer a party to this action and therefore its objection
to remand and all other pending motions filed by Northrop (Docs. 29 & 41) are MOOT.
Moreover, all additional pending motions (Doc. 23 & 47) are DENIED as MOOT. Remand of
this case is indeed appropriate; this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE
this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 31, 2013
/s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?