Gohn et al v. Cornerstone Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 17

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 11], is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Missouri. 11 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 3/2/16. cc: Jefferson County.(CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY GOHN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CORNERSTONE MORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV854 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc. No.
11]. Defendant did not file a response to the Motion.
Plaintiff filed their Petition in the Circuit Court for the County of Jefferson,
Missouri on April 9, 2015. Defendant removed the matter to this Court pursuant to
the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Subsequently,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss the Truth in Lending Act claim. The Court
granted the motion on June 5, 2015.
This claim was the only claim arising under the law of the United States; it
was the only claim giving rise to the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs
therefore move to remand this matter because their federal question claim has been
dismissed.

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c)(3). “A district court's decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after
dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely
discretionary.” Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 359 (8th Cir.2011)
(quoting Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639, 129 S.Ct. 1862,
173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009)). While the determination of whether to dismiss state-law
claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3) is a matter of discretion for a district court, “[i]n
the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—
judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining
to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Barstad v. Murray
County, 420 F.3d 880, 888 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Carnegie–Mellon University v.
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988)). Among other things, this reflects a policy
that federal courts should avoid addressing state law issues when possible.
Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 419–20 (8th Cir.2000).
Defendant does not object to the remand, and the Court agrees with the
policy stated above.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 11], is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit
Court for Jefferson County, Missouri.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3