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
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?