BONANNI v. PURDY et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 12/13/2013. (tf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STEPHEN J. BONANNI, SR.,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 13-6212 (JBS/AMD)
v.
DONALD PURDY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
This action arises out of $51,765.24 of unpaid sick and
vacation time Plaintiff Stephen J. Bonnani, Sr., alleges the
Defendant Township of Galloway, N.J., owes him. The Township and
Defendant Donald Purdy, Galloway’s mayor, removed this matter
from New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County, because the
Complaint contained a single reference to the U.S. Constitution
in Count Twelve, which alleges a violation of substantive due
process. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint removing the
“inadvertent” reference to the U.S. Constitution, and now moves
for remand. [Docket Item 6.] The motion is unopposed.
For the reasons explained below, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands this matter to
New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic County.
1. The original Count Twelve of the Complaint, alleging a
violation of substantive due process, stated that Defendants
“are subject the Constitution of the state of New Jersey as
citizens or public entities of the state of New Jersey.
Plaintiff is and was at all times an individual subject to the
Constitution of New Jersey and is entitled to due process of
law.” (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65.) The only reference to federal law in
the Complaint appeared in the next sentence: “Defendants have
violated Plaintiff’s right to Substantive Due Process guaranteed
by both the Constitution of New Jersey and the United States
Constitution.” (Id. ¶ 66.)
2. Defendants removed the action to this Court because
Count Twelve alleged “a violation of plaintiff’s substantive due
process rights under the United States Constitution, presumably
the 14th Amendment.” (Notice of Removal [Docket Item 1] ¶ 4(a).)
Defendants argued that because federal rights are “enforceable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and are implicated by plaintiff’s
complaint, the United States District Court has original
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”
(Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants did not assert any other basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants then filed an answer to
the Complaint [Docket Item 3], and seven days later, Plaintiff
filed both the Amended Complaint and the present motion to
remand. [Docket Items 5 & 6.]
2
3. Count Twelve, as amended, no longer mentions the U.S.
Constitution. Plaintiff describes the original reference as
“inadvertent,” and observes that the original Complaint did not
expressly invoke § 1983. (Pl. Mot. [Docket Item 6] ¶ 3.) All
claims in the Amended Complaint arise under state law.
Therefore, Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action as amended. (Id. ¶ 5.)
4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) provides, in relevant part,
that a “party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within: . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading,”
if “the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required . . . .” Plaintiff filed his first Amended Complaint,
which is a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required,
within seven days of Defendants’ responsive pleading, the
answer. Therefore, under Rule 15(a), Plaintiff was permitted to
amend his Complaint as a matter of course.
5. Because the original Complaint apparently included a
substantive due process claim under the U.S. Constitution,
removal was not improper, and the Court exercised supplemental
jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). Eliminating the only federal claim from the Amended
Complaint does not automatically divest this Court of
jurisdiction over the matter; a district court’s decision
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after every claim
3
over which it had original jurisdiction has been amended away,
withdrawn or dismissed is “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad
Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639-40 (2009); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . .
the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction); Cardona v. Dow Jones & Co., No. 12-4679,
2012 WL 5986533, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2012) (declining to
retain supplemental jurisdiction when the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed all claims arising under federal law); Alicea v.
Outback Steakhouse, No. 10-4702, 2011 WL 1675036, at *5 (D.N.J.
May 3, 2011) (“Although the Plaintiff is not automatically
entitled to remand because he dropped the federal claims from
the Amended Complaint, this matter may be remanded under 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c).”), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL
2444235, at *2 (D.N.J. June 9, 2011). The Third Circuit has
recognized that where all federal claims are dismissed before
trial, “the district court must decline to decide the pendent
state claims unless considerations of judicial economy,
convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative
justification for doing so. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123
(3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45
F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)) (emphasis in Hedges).
4
6. Here, none of the parties has identified considerations
of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to justify the
continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. This action is
not yet two months old, and no motion practice has occurred in
this Court. Furthermore, Defendants do not oppose the motion to
remand. Therefore, this action alleging only state-law claims
belongs in state court. The Court declines to retain
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and
remands the action to New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic
County.
7. An accompanying Order will be entered.
December 13, 2013
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?