JOHNSON v. CITY OF BAYONNE et al

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 MOTION to Remand filed by TYRONE JOHNSON Objections, if any, to R&R due by 5/29/2015; Order granting pltf's request to file an amended complt.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 5/15/2015. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TYRONE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-00508(JLL)(JAD)

v.

ORDER/ REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

CITY OF BAYONNE, CAPTAIN
ANTHONY LARINO, OFFICER
MAHONEY, LT. DIEDRICH, and
JOHN DOE (Fictitious Name),
Defendants.
JOSEPH A. DICKSON, U.S.M.J.
This matter comes before the Court upon motion, (ECF No. 2), by Plaintiff Tyrone John n
("Plaintiff') to remand this action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hud n
County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (the "Motion to Remand"). Pursuant to Federal Rul
Civil Procedure 78, no oral argument was heard. After having considered the parties' submissi
and for good cause shown; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Complaint on December 10, 2014 ( the "Complai
(Complaint, ECF No. 1-1, at4) in the SuperiorCourtofNew Jersey, Law Division, Hudson Co
against Defendants City of Bayonne, Officer Mahoney, and Lt. Diedrich (collectiv ly
"Defendants"); and
WHEREAS Defendants removed this action to this Court on January 23, 2015, assert g
that removal was appropriate because Plaintiff alleges claims under the Federal Civil Rights
USCA § 1983, and the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state
claims, (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 2); and
1

..
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand on February 05, 2015, requesti g

that the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, ("Proposed Amend d
Complaint," ECF No. 2-2), which no longer asserts any claims under the Federal Civil Rights A t,
(ECF No. 2-1, at 2); and
WHEREAS if the Court grants Plaintiffs motion for leave to file the Proposed Amen d

Complaint, Plaintiffs remaining claims are state law claims, and the Court will therefore 1 k
subject matter jurisdiction over this action; and
WHEREAS Defendants had the opportunity to, but did not oppose Plaintiffs request o

file the Proposed Amended Complaint, nor Plaintiffs Motion to Remand; and
WHEREAS pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be "freely give

when justice so requires ... "; and
WHEREAS "[t]he grant or denial of leave to amend is a matter committed to the so

discretion of the district court." Arab African Int'l Bank v. Epstein, 10 F.3d 168, 174 (3d
1993). The Third Circuit adopted a liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings under F
R. Civ. P. 15 to ensure that "a particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than n
technicalities." Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal citati n
omitted). Leave to amend a pleading may be denied if the court finds: (1) undue delay; (2) un

e

prejudice to the non-moving party; (3) bad faith or dilatory motive; or (4) futility of amendm
Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000); and
WHEREAS this Court finds that leave to amend the Complaint is appropriate under F

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) because Plaintiffs motion is timely and there is no evidence of bad fai ,
dilatory motive, undue delay or futility of amendment;
IT IS on this

15th

day of May, 2015,

2

..
ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to file the Proposed Amended Complaint, (ECF
2), is GRANTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Proposed Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 2-2), s
attached to Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, is deemed filed as of the date of this Order; and
IT IS FURTHER THE RECOMMENDATION of this Court, that the action
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Proposed Amended Complaint, (ECF
2-2), does not assert any federal claims.

SO ORDERED

cc:

Honorable. Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J.

3

e