Gallagher-McKee v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc.

Filing 20

Judge Mark L. Wolf: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Franklin, Yvonne)

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ELAINE GALLAGHER-MCKEE,

Plaintiff,
V.

C.A.

LAHEY CLINIC HOSPITAL,

No.

17-10184-MLW

INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WOLF, D.J.

November 27, 2017

On November 2, 2017, the court ordered the parties to confer

and report,

by November 20,

2017,

whether this case should be

remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. See Docket No.

19 at 5.

"A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects

in its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte." Spooner v.
Inc.,

644 F.3d 62,

defect

in

67

(1st Cir.

subject-matter

EEN,

2011). When the court notices a

jurisdiction,

the

"party

asserting

jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating [its] existence..."
Fabrica

de

Mendoza,

Muebles

Inc.,

J.J.

682 F.

Alvarez,

3d 26,

32-33

Incorporado

(1st Cir.

v.

Inversiones

2012) . The parties

did not respond to the November 2, 2017 Order. Therefore, neither
party is now asserting that jurisdiction exists.

As explained in the November 2,
the Amended Complaint
under

Massachusetts

alleges

law.

For

2017 Memorandum and Order,

only negligent misrepresentation
the

reasons

discussed

in

that

Memorandum

and

Order,

the

court

may

not

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over that claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, because

doing so would not

"serve the interests of

fairness,

judicial

economy, convenience, and comity." Wilber v. Curtis, 872 F. 3d 15,
23

{1st Cir.

2017} ("In the usual case in which all federal-law

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors... will

point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law

claims.").

In

addition,

the

court

may

not

exercise

federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because there

is no showing that the claim raises an issue of federal law that
is "substantial," or "important to the federal system as a whole."
Municipality of Mayaguez v. CPDO, 726 F. 3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2013).
Moreover, there is no showing that jurisdiction could be exercised

without

disturbing

the

"congressionally

approved

balance

of

federal and state judicial responsibilities." Anversa v. Partners
Healthcare Sys. Inc., 835 F. 3d 167, 175 (1st Cir. 2016).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is REMANDED
to the Massachusetts Superior Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE