Palazzo, et al vs Bonaventura

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 10 and 11 Motions to Remand to State Court and Denying 15 and 16 Requests for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/12/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

DANIEL F. PALAZZO and TIMOTHY
MICHAEL BECKETT,

ORDER
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13

Case No. 2:12:cv-00562-MMD-VCF

(Motions to Remand to State Court – Dkt.
nos. 10 and 11)
(Requests for Sanctions – Dkt.nos. 15 and
16)

JOHN BONAVENTURA, et al.
Defendant.

14
15

Before the Court are Plaintiff Daniel Palazzo‟s and Plaintiff Timothy Michael

16

Beckett‟s Motions to Remand to State Court (dkt. nos. 10 and 11), and Requests for

17

Sanctions. (Dkt. nos.15 and 16). Both Plaintiffs are represented by the same attorney

18

and filed nearly identical pleadings and the Court treats them as one. For the reasons

19

set forth below, the Court denies the motions.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

This dispute arose from the alleged wrongful demotion and termination of two

22

constables, Daniel Palazzo and Michael Beckett, formerly employed with the Las Vegas

23

Township Constable Office.

24

constitutional rights under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

25

United States Constitution and state common law claims. (Dkt. no. 1, Ex. A at 14-26).

The complaint alleges claims for violation of Plaintiffs‟

26

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Eight Judicial District Court. Defendant timely

27

removed the action based on federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed separate

28

motions for remand and included a request for sanctions in their separate reply briefs.

1

II.

MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT
A defendant may remove an action to federal court if the plaintiff could have

2
3

initially filed the complaint in federal court.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

If removal was

4

improper and the federal court lacks jurisdiction, the federal court must remand the case

5

to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

6

A district court analyzes jurisdiction “on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time

7

of removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l

8

Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998).The “presence or

9

absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the „well-pleaded complaint rule,‟

10

which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented

11

on the face of the plaintiff‟s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482

12

U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
This case was properly removed by Defendant.

13

The Court has jurisdiction

14

because on its face the complaint presents two federal questions: a First Amendment

15

claim and a Fourteenth Amendment claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; (Dkt. no. 1 at ¶¶ 28-

16

42).

17

The issue most briefed by the parties regarding this motion is whether the case

18

was improperly removed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, because of the other

19

federal causes of action alleged in the complaint, much of the dispute is superfluous.

20

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant improperly removed the case pursuant to § 1983

21

because Plaintiffs‟ complaint does not allege a § 1983 violation. Plaintiffs are correct

22

that Defendant‟s Notice of Removal is entitled “Notice of Removal Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

23

§ 1983,” (dkt. no. 1 at 2), and that Plaintiffs do not allege a § 1983 violation in their

24

complaint. But as mentioned, this is of no import because the face of the complaint does

25

include two Constitutional causes of action, both listed by Defendant as other bases for

26

removal in its Removal Petition. (Dkt. no. 1 at 3). Plaintiffs agree that this case involves

27

federal causes of action.

28

“classic . . . First Amendment violation.” (Dkt. no. 1, Ex. A at 14). And in its Motion to

The first page of the complaint describes this case as a

2

1

Remand to State Court, Plaintiffs admit that they listed these federal claims in their

2

complaint, and in fact continue to argue that Defendant violated Plaintiffs‟ constitutional

3

rights in that very pleading. (See, e.g., dkt. no. 10 at 2).

4

Plaintiffs assert, however, that the constitutional claims are secondary to the state

5

law breach of contract claims, and therefore the case does not “arise under” the United

6

States Constitution. (Id. at 9.) The Court rejects Plaintiffs‟ argument. Because this case

7

involves federal and state claims arising out of the same event, this Court has jurisdiction

8

to hear all claims.

9

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims

10

that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form

11

part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”

12

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997) (citing 28 U.S.C. §

13

1367(a)). The “provision applies with equal force to cases removed to federal court as to

14

cases initially filed there; a removed case is necessarily one of which the district courts .

15

. . have original jurisdiction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A federal court has

16

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so long as the claims are derived “„from a

17

common nucleus of operative fact,‟ such that „the relationship between [the federal] claim

18

and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court

19

comprises but one constitutional‟ case.” Id. at 165 (citing Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383

20

U.S. 715, 725 (1966)).

“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original

21

The federal and state law claims in this case derive from a common nucleus of

22

operative fact: the events leading up to Plaintiffs‟ terminations and the terminations

23

themselves. In fact, Plaintiffs assert detailed allegations in support of their first two

24

federal claims for violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and

25

then rely on the same factual allegations “as described above” in support of their three

26

state law claims.

27

///

28

///

(Dkt. no. 1, Ex. A at ¶¶48, 53, 58.)

3

1

III.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

2

Plaintiffs included a request for sanctions in their separate reply briefs. Because

3

the Court denies the motions to remand, the Court also denies the requests for

4

sanctions.

5

IV.

6
7

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs‟ motions to remand to state court and

requests for sanctions are DENIED.

8
9

ENTERED THIS 12th day of June 2012.

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4