Feet First Podiatry, LLC v. Light Age, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended motion to dismiss 36 is granted, and plaintiff's claims against defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. are dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss 13 is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 5/30/2017. (Order and certified docket sheet sent to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County this date.)(CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
FEET FIRST PODIATRY, LLC,
LIGHT AGE INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:17 CV 1420 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND
Plaintiff filed this case in state court over equipment damaged during
shipment. Plaintiff asserted state law claims against the shipping companies and the
manufacturer of the equipment.1 When plaintiff amended its petition to allege a
claim against defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) under the Carmack
Amendment, UPS timely removed this case to this Court asserting federal question
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2 UPS then moved to dismiss
the federal claim and the state law fraudulent misrepresentation claim against it.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, and its time for doing so has
Light Age, Inc. is the alleged the manufacturer and defendant MML, LLC and United
Parcel Service, Inc. are the alleged shipping companies.
District courts have original jurisdiction over Carmack Amendment claims where the bill of
lading exceeds $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a). The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
expired. I will grant the unopposed motion to dismiss, and plaintiff’s claims against
UPS are dismissed. Plaintiff’s state law claims against defendants Light Age and
MML, LLC remain pending.3
Having dismissed the claim forming the basis of federal jurisdiction, the
Court has discretion to remand the remaining state law claims to state court. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over a state-law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.”); Lindsey v. Dillard’s, Inc., 306 F.3d 596, 599 (8th Cir.
2002) (district court “maintains discretion to either remand the state law claims or
keep them in federal court” in such a situation); Brown v. Mortg. Elec. Registration
Sys., Inc., 738 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2013) (this discretion is “very broad”). This
case was pending in state court for three years and proceeded through considerable
motion practice before it became removable, and it has only been pending in this
Court for less than one month. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that
the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor
of remanding the remaining state law claims to state court. See Carnegie–Mellon
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (when making this determination, a
Carmack Amendment claim because plaintiff alleges the equipment was insured for $30,000.
Whether defendant MML, LLC is in default is an issue that was unresolved in state court.
district court should consider “the values of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity” and remand if “the balance of these factors indicates that a
case properly belongs in state court.”).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended motion to dismiss  is
granted, and plaintiff’s claims against defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. are
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss  is denied as
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded to the Circuit
Court of St. Charles County, Missouri.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of May, 2017.
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?