Thompson et al v. New Orleans Center for Creative Arts et al

Filing 10

ORDER and REASONS granting 6 MOTION to Remand. For reasons set forth within document, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED back to State Court. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 5/21/2018.(sa) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2018: # 1 Remand Letter to CDC) (sa).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

THEODORE THOMPSON, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 17-17551

NEW ORLEANS CENTER FOR
CREATIVE ARTS, ET AL.

SECTION “H”(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (Doc. 6). For the
following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of the expulsion of two students from Defendant
New Orleans Center for Creative Arts (“NOCCA”), a public, performing and
visual arts high school located in New Orleans. On October 31, 2017, the
students, minors represented by Plaintiffs Renee Diaz and Carlos Ruiz de la
Torre, were accused of using or possessing marijuana in the bathroom of
NOCCA during school hours. Later that day, they were expelled. Their
subsequent appeal of the decision was denied after a brief hearing. Plaintiffs
argue that school officials did not follow proper protocol in deciding to expel
1

the students, denying them a fair hearing and violating their due process
rights.
Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Civil District Court of Orleans
Parish. They also sought damages against NOCCA for violation of the students’
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and breach of contract. In light of
Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants removed the
case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Subsequently, Plaintiffs
amended their petition, removing all claims under federal law and instead
seeking damages for due process violations under the Louisiana Constitution.
Plaintiffs now argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and ask
that the case be remanded back to state court. Defendants oppose this motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Generally, a defendant may remove a civil state court action to federal
court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. 1 The burden
is on the removing party to show “that federal jurisdiction exists and that
removal was proper.” 2 When determining whether federal jurisdiction exists,
courts consider “the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the
time of removal.” 3 “In making a jurisdictional assessment, a federal court is
not limited to the pleadings; it may look to any record evidence, and may
receive affidavits, deposition testimony or live testimony concerning the facts
underlying the citizenship of the parties.” 4 Removal statutes should be strictly
construed, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of remand. 5

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002).
3 Id.
4 Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996).
5 Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723.
1
2

2

LAW AND ANALYSIS
When a case is removed from state court, federal jurisdiction is examined
at the time of removal. 6 Subsequent events, such as an amended complaint,
will not relinquish a court of federal jurisdiction. 7 However, “[c]ourts are
instructed to examine their jurisdiction at every stage of the litigation.” 8
Specifically, “[a] district court has ‘wide discretion’ in deciding whether it
should retain jurisdiction over state law claims once all federal claims have
been eliminated.” 9 “The general rule is that a court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are
eliminated before trial.” 10
When deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over pending state law
claims, the Court considers and balances the statutory factors in 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c), as well as the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity. 11 The statutory factors consider if: “(1) the claim raises a
novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates
over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 12
While the first and fourth factors are inapplicable here, the second and
third factors strongly favor remand because only state law claims remain
pending before this Court. 13 In addition, the factors of judicial economy and

Coury, 85 F.3d at 248–49.
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., v. KN Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
8 Enochs v. Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted).
9 Id.
10 Brookshire Bros. Holding v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009).
11 Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159.
12 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13 Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159.
6
7

3

comity favor remand. Plaintiffs have abandoned their federal claims while this
action is still in its infancy, and therefore there is little concern for the
duplication of work. In addition, Louisiana state court has a significant
interest in resolving issues of state law involving a state-run institution. While
Defendants complain about the unfairness of Plaintiffs’ amendment, a “motion
to amend [a] complaint to delete the federal claims is not a particularly
egregious form of forum manipulation.” 14 Further, forum manipulation “is not
so serious of a concern that it can become a trump card which overrides all of
the other factors [the Court is] instructed to consider and balance.” 15 The
Supreme Court has held that a federal district court has a “powerful reason”
to remand a case to state court “[w]hen the single federal-law claim in the
action was eliminated at an early stage of the litigation.” 16 Accordingly,
because both sets of factors favor remand and no federal claims remain, this
Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED,
and this matter is REMANDED back to state court.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 21st day of May, 2018.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Id.
Id. at 160–61.
16 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988).
14
15

4