Maher v. Town of Harwich Conservation Commission et al

Filing 7

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 5 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ; finding as moot 6 Motion to Stay. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:1. The parties' Partial Stipula tion of Dismissal withPrejudice and Request for Remand (Docket No. 4) is ALLOWED.2. Defendants' Assented-to Motion for Extension of Time toFile Answer to Complaint (Docket No. 5) is DENIED without prejudiceto being presented, if necessary, to the state court.3. The parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings PendingRemand to State Court (Docket No. 6) is MOOT.4. This case is REMANDED to the Barnstable Superior Court ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Hohler, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ELIZABETH A. MAHER,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
TOWN OF HARWICH CONSERVATION
)
COMMISSION, DEAN KNIGHT, LARA
)
SLIFKA, WALTER DIGGS, JANE
)
FLEMING, RON SAULNIER,
)
AMY MORRIS, and BRADFORD CHASE, )
Defendants.
)

C.A. No. 11-10236-MLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, D.J.

June 22, 2011

On December 17, 2010, plaintiff Elizabeth Maher filed a threecount complaint in Barnstable Superior Court against defendants
Town of Harwich Conservation Commission, Dean Knight, Lara Slifka,
Walter Diggs, Jane Fleming, Ron Saulnier, Amy Morris, and Bradford
Chase. On February 11, 2011, defendants timely filed a notice of
removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1441 and 1446, stating that this
court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because Count
III

of

the

complaint

raises

claims

under

the

United

States

Constitution.
The

parties

voluntarily

stipulated

to

the

dismissal

of

plaintiff's constitutional claims, leaving in dispute only the
state law claims raised in Counts I and II of the complaint.
Accordingly, as the parties agree, this court no longer has
jurisdiction over this case, and the parties' joint motion for
remand is being allowed. However, defendants' motion to extend the
deadline by which they must answer the complaint upon remand is

being denied, because a federal court cannot issue an order that is
binding on a state court upon remand. See Christopher v. StanleyBostitch, Inc., 240 F.3d 95, 100 (1st Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The

parties'

Partial

Stipulation

of

Dismissal

with

Prejudice and Request for Remand (Docket No. 4) is ALLOWED.
2. Defendants' Assented-to Motion for Extension of Time to
File Answer to Complaint (Docket No. 5) is DENIED without prejudice
to being presented, if necessary, to the state court.
3. The parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Remand to State Court (Docket No. 6) is MOOT.
4. This case is REMANDED to the Barnstable Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

/s/ Mark L. Wolf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2