CRAWFORD v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/4/2012. (TH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DON R. CRAWFORD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil No. 12-1723 (JBS/AMD)
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et
al.,
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff
Don R. Crawford, Jr. to remand the action to the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Burlington County.
[Docket Item 3.]
Also before
the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to
complete service on certain Defendants.
[Docket Item 4.]
THE
COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Plaintiff initially filed this action on January 12,
2012 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County,
alleging that he suffered injuries as a result of an unprovoked
attack by officers of the New Jersey State Police, several of
whom Plaintiff identifies as Defendants in the action.
Item 1, Ex. A.]
[Docket
Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and monetary damages under several causes of
action, including violation of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count One) and multiple state-law causes
of action (Counts Two through Eight).
2.
On March 20, 2012, Defendant Sergeant Trumbetti removed
the action from the Burlington County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, because the Complaint
alleges a violation of a federal statute.
3.
[Docket Item 1.]
On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
Complaint, stripping out the federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, and further moving to remand the action to Burlington
County Superior Court, on the grounds that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction once the federal claim has been
removed.
4.
[Docket Item 3.]
Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.
Subsequent to filing his motion to amend and remand,
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a corrected motion to amend, attaching
a modified proposed amended complaint, explaining that
consultation with counsel for Defendants revealed that the
originally submitted proposed amended complaint failed to remove
all references to Plaintiff’s federal claim.
[Docket Item 5.]
Consequently, Plaintiff requested that the modified proposed
amended complaint be considered in the place of the first
proposed amended complaint.
Plaintiff refers to this document as
the Second Amended Complaint.
5.
Plaintiff additionally moves, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
for an extension of time to serve certain defendants, claiming
2
that good cause exists to warrant an extension of 120 days to
effect service due to the jurisdictional complexities occasioned
by the removal of the action to this Court and Plaintiff’s
pending, and unopposed, motion to remand.
6.
The Court concludes that, under the present
circumstances, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for his
failure to complete service within the 120 days authorized under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff requested the extension of time
prior to the expiration of time to file service, and provided
sufficient justification for the extension. See Mathies v.
Silver, 450 F. App’x 219, 222 (3d Cir. 2011) (stating that good
cause is established upon “a demonstration of good faith on the
part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable
basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.”)
(quoting MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d
1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Therefore, the Court grants
Plaintiff’s request for an additional 120 days to complete
service on the remaining unserved Defendants.
7.
The Court turns next to Plaintiff’s motion to amend his
Complaint.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff is entitled to amend his Complaint once as
of right because no Defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading
or dispositive motion in this action.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
Thus, the Court will grant
Indeed, even were Plaintiff not
3
entitled to amend his complaint as of right, the Court would
grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2), as it is accepted policy to liberally grant leave to
amend pleadings when justice so requires.
See Dole v. Arco
Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d Cir. 1990).
In this case,
where no prejudice to Defendants has been demonstrated, the Court
should exercise its discretion to grant the motion to amend the
complaint.
See Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir.
1993) (holding that prejudice to the non-moving party is the
“touchstone for the denial of the amendment.”).
Therefore, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend; Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint shall be docketed.
8.
The Court therefore recognizes that no federal claims
are currently pending in this action.
Plaintiff moves, on this
basis, to remand the action to the Burlington County Superior
Court.
The Court previously exercised supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s pendant state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a).
Having deleted all federal claims from the action, the
Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over the remaining
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
As Plaintiff’s state law
claims now substantially predominate in this action, and as
Plaintiff’s motion to remand is unopposed by the removing
parties, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand the
Second Amended Complaint.
4
9.
In summation, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion
for an extension of time to serve by an additional 120 days.
Additionally, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend
his complaint, and will further grant Plaintiff’s motion to
remand the action to the Burlington County Superior Court.
The
accompanying Order shall be entered.
June 4, 2012
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
5
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?