Milburn v. Missoula Housing Authority et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Count 1 and 2 against USDA Rural Development are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 against USDA Rural Development are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to e xercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims brought under state law. Consequently, this case is REMANDED back to the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 7/16/2018. (ASG) Modified on 7/16/2018 (ASG).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

FILED
JUL 16 2018
~s

Diltrict Court

~'t,ntana

CHRISTY MILBURN,
CV 18-10-M-DLC
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
MISSOULA HOUSING
AUTHORITY and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
Defendants.

Defendant United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development
("USDA Rural Development") has filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff
has not set forth a basis for jurisdiction or the waiver of sovereign immunity for
suit against a United States federal agency. (Doc. 7.) Defendant Missoula
Housing Authority ("MHD") does not object to the Motion. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff
Christy Milburn ("Milburn") concedes that all her claims against USDA Rural
Development should be dismissed. 1 (Doc. 14.)
District courts tend to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over
remaining state law claims when all federal law claims have been dismissed. 28

1

Milburn indicates in her Response that some claims should be dismissed without prejudice and
some with prejudice.

-1-

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.
1997). Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is discretionary, and
courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims
"[d]epending on a host of factors ... including the circumstances of the particular
case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law,
and the relationship between the state and federal claims." City of Chicago v.

International College ofSurgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). In exercising its
discretion, the Court must consider whether retaining or declining jurisdiction will
best accommodate "the objectives of economy, convenience and fairness to the
parties, and comity." Trustees of Construction Industry and Laborers Health and

Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maintenance, Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925
(9th Cir. 2003). To retain jurisdiction over Milburn's remaining state law claims
against MHD would hinder judicial economy, fairness, and comity. This Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,
and finds that a remand to state court is appropriate.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant USDA Rural Development's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. Count 1 and 2 against USDA Rural Development
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 against USDA
Rural Development are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims brought under state law.
Consequently, this case is REMANDED back to the Montana Fourth Judicial
District Court, Missoula County, for all further proceedings.
Dated this

I'~ay

of July, 2018.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-3-