AL SHEHAB et al v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. et al

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 MOTION to Remand filed by FATIMA YASMEEN, SAYEED AL SHEHAB Objections, if any, to R&R due by 6/29/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge James B. Clark on 6/15/2015. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

AL SHEHAB, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-279 (KM)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

CLARK, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs Sayeed Al Shebab and Fatima
Yasmeen’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand this matter to state court.

(Dkt. No. 3).

Defendants New Jersey Transit Corp. (“NJ Transit”), P.O. Gomez (“Gomez”), Det. Tropeano
(“Tropeano”), P.O. Toni Cruz (“Cruz”), Sgt. Imperiale (“Imperiale”) (collectively
“Defendants”) did not file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule
72.1(a)(2), the Honorable Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J., referred the Motion to the Undersigned
for Report and Recommendation. The Court having considered the arguments submitted in
support of the motion, for good cause shown and for the reasons set forth herein, it is
respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand be GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
On or about December 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in the Superior Court

of New Jersey, Hudson County, asserting common law claims for false arrest, unlawful
imprisonment, malicious prosecution, constitutional rights violations under the United States
and New Jersey Constitutions, and a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No.
1, Compl., Ex. A). On January 22, 2015, Defendants removed the matter to this Court on the

1

basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Dkt. No. 1). With the
Defendants’ consent, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 10, 2015, which
eliminated the civil rights violation under the United States Constitution and the claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, and asserted a new common law cause of action for negligent hiring, training
and supervision. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4). On February 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to
Remand. Defendants did not file any opposition to this motion.
II.

DISCUSSION
The Third Circuit has held that “the party asserting federal jurisdiction in a removal

case bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before
the federal court.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing SamuelBassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004)). Section 1447(c) of Title
28 of the United States Code states that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
1447(c). Removal statutes “are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should
be resolved in favor of remand.” Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir.
1990) (citing Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d
Cir.1987)).
Where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over
federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a),
the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Growth
Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware Cnty., 983 F.2d 1277, 1284-85 (3d Cir. 1993). In exercising its
discretion, “the district court should take into account generally accepted principles of ‘judicial

2

economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants.’” Growth Horizons, Inc., 983 F.2d at 1284
(quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)); Trans Penn Wax Corp. v.
McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 233 (3d Cir. 1995) (“In deciding whether to remand, the district
court should consider what best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity.”). Where the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage in the litigation, courts
generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.

United Mine

Workers, 383 U.S. at 726; Growth Horizons, Inc., 983 F.2d at 1284-85; Pachecho v.
Rosenberg, No. 12-4513, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2013); Yan v.
Franklin Credit Mgmt. Co., No. 13-1273, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83686, at *6 (D.N.J. June
14, 2013); Coleman v. P.S.E.G. Co., No. 05-1894, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27816 (D.N.J. Nov.
15, 2005).
Plaintiffs contend that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and
comity weighs in favor of remanding the case to state court because the matter is in its early
stages, Plaintiffs’ claims require analysis under the New Jersey Constitution, and Plaintiffs’
claims allege misfeasance by public state actors. (Dkt. No. 3-1, at 7-8). Defendants do not
oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The Court notes that this case is in its infancy, as
Defendants have not yet filed an Answer, the parties have not yet exchanged discovery, and
there are no other pending applications or motions before the Court. The remaining claims in
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint arise under common law. Because the federal claims in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint have been removed, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). There is no indication that
maintaining the action here would promote the parties’ interests in convenience or fairness.

3

Remand, on the other hand, would serve the goals of judicial economy and comity by allowing
the New Jersey Superior Court to apply New Jersey law.
III.

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, and the Court having considered this matter pursuant to FED.

R. CIV. P. 78;
IT IS on this 15th day of June 2015,
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be GRANTED.
The parties are advised that they may file any objections within 14 days of the date of
this Order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
s/ James B. Clark, III
JAMES B. CLARK, III
United States Magistrate Judge

4