Rhodes et al v. MCIC, Inc et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 3/7/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
as Surviving Spouse and Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Earl J. Rhodes, deceased, et al.,
CIVIL NO. JKB-16-2459
MCIC, INC., et al.,
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, Motion
to Dismiss Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 443.) No response was filed to the motion and it is ripe
for decision. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). The motion will be
In an earlier ruling, the Court concluded this case was properly removed by Defendant
Crane Co. from state court pursuant to the “federal officer defense” embodied in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1442. (Mem. & Order 14, Sept. 29, 2016, ECF No. 187.) Further, the Court determined it also
possessed federal question jurisdiction over the cross-claims filed by other defendants against
Crane Co. (Id. 13-14.) Consequently, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 over the state law claims bound up with the federal officer defense claims was
appropriate. (Id. 11-12.) Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ earlier motion for remand.
Since that time, Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims against Crane Co. (ECF
Nos. 445, 446), and, concurrently with entry of the instant memorandum and accompanying
order, the Court is granting Crane Co.’s unopposed motion for summary judgment as to all
cross-claims and third-party claims against it (ECF No. 449). Because no other defendant has
claimed a federal officer defense, the case no longer presents federal claims. Even so, and
contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument (Mot. Remand ¶ 9), the Court does not lack subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Court still retains subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. See Carlsbad
Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (“Upon dismissal of the federal claim, the
District Court retained its statutory supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”);
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Porsche.Net, 302 F.3d 248, 256 (4th Cir. 2002) (“although
federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a case involving only state-law claims in the
absence of diversity jurisdiction, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over purely statelaw claims after resolving a claim that initially gave it subject-matter jurisdiction over the case”).
Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) to remand the remaining state-law claims because all claims within the Court’s
original jurisdiction have been resolved. A separate order of remand follows.
DATED this 7th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
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?