Frank v. Town of West Yellowstone, Montana et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying as Moot 27 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 34 Motion to Remand; denying as Moot 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Wage Protection Claim to State Court is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 2/24/2016. (ELL, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

FILED

BUTTE DIVISION

FEB 2 4 2016
AARON FRANK,

Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
Helena

Plaintiff,

No. CV 15-26-BU-SEH

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

TOWN OF WEST YELLOWSTONE,
MONTANA; COLE PARK.ER, in his
individual and official capacity; JOHN
COSTELLO, in his individual and
official capacity; GREG FORSYTHE,
in his individual and official capacity;
and BRAD SCHMIER, in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
This case arises from the Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial 1
of Plaintiff Aaron Frank ("Frank") filed in this Court on June 23, 2015.
On November 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss for which Defendants Cole Parker, John Costello, Greg Forsythe, and
Brad Schmier (the "Councilmen") and Defendant Town of West Yellowstone (the
1

See Doc. 4.
-1-

"Town") sought partial dismissal of Counts I, II, IV, V, VI, and IX against the
Town and dismissal of all counts against the Councilmen. 2 Upon the record made
in open court, the Court dismissed all claims against the Town's Councilmen in
their official and individual capacities. It also dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, V,
VI, and IX. On January 13, 2016, the Court dismissed Frank's constructive
discharge claim under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act
("WDEA"). 3 The remaining claim against the Town is a state law claim that arises
under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-3-205 and 39-3-206. 4 On January 29, 2016, Frank
filed Plaintiffs Motion to Remand the Wage Protection Claim to State Court. 5
DISCUSSION

A district court has discretion in deciding whether to adjudicate state law
claims following the disposition of federal claims. 6 It is within a district court's
discretion to remand the state law claims to federal court. 7 Moreover, "a remand
may best promote the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." 8

2

See Doc. 5.
See Doc. 26.
4
See Doc. 4 at 52-54.
3

5

See Doc. 34.

6

See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Nishimoto v. FedermanBachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990)).
7 Id.
8

Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988).

-2-

Here, all federal claims that established federal question jurisdiction have been
dismissed. 9 The only remaining is a claim that is based on state law.
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs Motion to Remand the Wage Protection Claim to State

Court 10 is GRANTED. This case is remanded to the Montana Eighteenth Judicial
District Court, Gallatin County.
2.

Defendant Town of West Yellowstone's Motion for Summary

Judgment 11 is DENIED as moot.
3.

Plaintiff, Aaron Frank's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 12

is DENIED as moot.
DATED this

~

~ 'f day of February, 2016

~~rn,
United States District Judge

9

See Docs. 19 and 26.
Doc. 34.
11
Doc.27
12
Doc. 39.

10

-3-