DUFFY v. ABSECON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al.
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Dismissing all federal claims with prejudice; ORDERED that the remaining state law claims in this case be, and hereby are, REMANDED to Cumberland County Superior Court, Law Division, CUM-L-0480-16. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/17/2019. (dmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRETT T. DUFFY,
HONORABLE NOEL L. HILLMAN
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
17-1117 (NLH/JS)
v.
THE ABSECON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court by way of a Stipulation
of Dismissal filed by the parties in this case. (See Stipulation
[Docket Item 110].)
The stipulation reflects the parties’
agreement to dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiff’s federal
claims against Defendants, and to remand the matter to state
court.
Defendants had removed Plaintiff’s case from state court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s federal
claims, with the Court having supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 1
1
Section 1367(a) provides:
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as
expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any
civil action of which the district courts have original
jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that
they form part of the same case or controversy under
Article III of the United States Constitution. Such
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), diversity of
citizenship, is not an available basis for jurisdiction because
Plaintiff and Defendants are all citizens of New Jersey.
Ordinarily, post-removal stipulations between the parties
that alter an element of subject matter jurisdiction, which had
been properly established at the time of removal, in an attempt
to return to state court are without force.
See, e.g., Tom’s
Landscaping Contractors, LLC v. Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc., 2018
WL 5294510, at *2 (D.N.J. 2018) (declining to endorse the
parties’ “Consent Order Permitting Plaintiff to File Amended
Complaint and For Remand of Entire Action to State Court,” where
the amended complaint would add a non-diverse party, because the
filing of the plaintiff’s amended complaint would not defeat
subject matter jurisdiction if such jurisdiction existed at the
time the defendant removed plaintiff’s original complaint)
(citing Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. 537, 539 (1824), quoted in
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570
(2004) (“It has been long and well-established that in
determining whether a federal court may exercise jurisdiction
based upon diversity of citizenship, the court must look to ‘the
state of things at the time of the action brought.’”); St. Paul
supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve
the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 294–95 (1938)
(“It uniformly has been held that in a suit properly begun in
the federal court the change of citizenship of a party does not
oust the jurisdiction.
The same rule governs a suit originally
brought in a state court and removed to a federal court.”));
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 292–93 (announcing long
ago that “the plaintiff after removal, by stipulation, by
affidavit, or by amendment of his pleadings, reduces the claim
below the requisite amount, [] does not deprive the district
court of jurisdiction,” and further reiterating that “events
occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount
recoverable, whether beyond the plaintiff's control or the
result of his volition, do not oust the district court's
jurisdiction once it has attached”).
The parties have endeavored to do a similar thing here.
Technically, their post-removal stipulation for the remand of
the case to state court does not provide the mechanism for
remand.
The parties cannot unilaterally consent to the remand
of the case when this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action. 2
2
Indeed, that was the reason behind the Court’s September 11,
2019 Order, which provided Plaintiff leave to file either a
stipulation of voluntary dismissal of his entire case pursuant
to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), or a motion to remand the case to
Cumberland County Superior Court, Law Division. (See Order
[Docket Item 108], 1-2.)
3
Their stipulation is not entirely without any force,
however, because Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of his federal
claims within that stipulation provides a basis for the Court to
consider whether, in its discretion, it should continue to
exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
“Section 1367(c) grants district courts the discretion to
refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when ‘values of
judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’ counsel
that the district court remand state claims to a state forum.”
Hudson United Bank v. LiTenda Mortg. Corp., 142 F.3d 151, 157
(3d Cir. 1998) (quoting City of Chicago v. International College
of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 167 (1997)) (other citation omitted)
(“The whole point of supplemental jurisdiction is to allow the
district courts to exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims as
to which original jurisdiction is lacking.”).
Section 1367(c)
provides:
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a)
if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State
law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has
original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction, or
4
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Through Plaintiff’s stipulation dismissing his federal
claims, the claims over which this Court had original
jurisdiction are no longer in the case.
Further, the only
remaining claims arise under state law for violations of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5–1 et seq., and
the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6–1 et seq.
Thus,
the Court finds that it will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under §
1367(c)(2) and (3), and the Court will remand the matter to
state court. 3
3
Because Plaintiff’s case was removed from state court, rather
than filed here originally, the Court will remand, rather than
dismiss, this action. See, e.g., Monk v. New Jersey, 2014 WL
4931309, at *3 (D.N.J. 2014) (declining to continue exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims
after the dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal claims, and
determining that “[r]ather than dismiss this case outright,
however, the Court has discretion to remand this matter and the
remaining state law claims back to the state court for further
adjudication”) (citing Whittaker v. CCIS N. of Phila., No. 10–
1095, 2010 WL 1644492, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2010) (“Where a
case has been removed from state court to federal court on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction, the United States
Supreme Court has recognized that a district court retains the
discretion to remand that matter back to state court when all
federal law claims have been dropped or dismissed from the
action and only pendant state law claims remain.”) (citing
Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988)).
5
THEREFORE,
IT IS this
17th
day of
October
, 2019
ORDERED that all federal claims in this case be, and hereby
are, DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs; and it is
further
ORDERED that the remaining state law claims in this case
be, and hereby are, REMANDED to Cumberland County Superior
Court, Law Division, CUM-L-0480-16; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter as
CLOSED.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
6
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?