WINSLOW et al v. LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF MAINE

Filing 69

DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT IV OF COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO REMAND - granting 59 Motion to Remand to State Court; granting 59 Motion to Dismiss. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DENA WINSLOW, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS
v.
LEARNING DISABILITIES
ASSOCIATION OF MAINE,
DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-32-DBH

DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNT IV OF COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO REMAND
The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their only federal claim in this
lawsuit. (Diversity of citizenship is missing.) Simultaneously, they have moved
to remand the case to Maine state court, from which the defendants removed it
on account of the federal claim. Pls.’ Mot. to Dismiss Count IV of Complaint
and to Remand the Remaining Claims to Superior Court (ECF No. 59). The
defendant agrees that the federal claim should be dismissed1 (indeed, it says
that it will move for summary judgment on that claim).

But the defendant

objects to the motion to remand, arguing that it amounts to improper forumshopping, inefficient use of judicial resources, and unfairness. Def.’s Opp’n to
Pls.’ Mot. at 7-8 (ECF No. 64).
Whether I grant the motion to dismiss (which is unopposed) or later
grant the defendant’s proposed motion for summary judgment on the only
“Although [the defendant] opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, it steadfastly maintains that
Plaintiff Winslow’s claim under the federal Stored Communications Act is baseless.” Def.’s
Opp’n to Pls.’ Mots. at 2 n.1 (ECF No. 64).
1

federal claim, the question of remand is unavoidable. Under the supplemental
jurisdiction

statute,

the

court

“may

decline

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over a claim” when the court “has dismissed all claims over which
it has original jurisdiction.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

That is the case here.

Although it is true that discovery has been completed in this federal forum and
that the Magistrate Judge and I have presided over discovery and scheduling
issues, we have not engaged substantively in the case. The remaining claims
and counterclaims involve state law questions, and are more appropriately
treated in state court. The fact that discovery has been completed here does
not mean that significant burden, cost and prejudice have been unnecessarily
incurred. I do not consider the timing of the motion to be improper. (If it were
solely forum-shopping, it likely would have occurred soon after removal.)

I

would perform the same analysis and reach the same result if this were the
consequence of granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the
federal claims.
Therefore, Count IV (the federal claim) is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE,

and

the remainder of the case is REMANDED to the Maine Superior Court (Aroostook
County).
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2