Thompson v. City of Fayetteville, et al.

Filing 60

ORDER granting 56 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/27/2017. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-77-BO
WILLIE THOMPSON,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)

WALGREEN COMPANY and AANAL
PATEL, a Walgreen employee,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion to remand this matter to
Cumberland County Superior Court. Defendants oppose remand. Also pending before the Court
are defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs motion for extension of time to
respond, as well as defendants' motion to seal. For the reasons that follow, this matter is remanded
to state court.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action in the North Carolina Superior Court in Cumberland County on
January 13, 2016.

The matter was removed to this Court pursuant to its federal question

jurisdiction based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendants City of Fayetteville, Ramon
Herrera, Andrew Dickinson, and Thomas Marshburn. Following removal, plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed defendants City of Fayetteville, Hererra, Dickinson, and Marshburn and the federal
question claims alleged against them. Now remaining are plaintiffs North Carolina state tort law
claims against defendants Walgreen Company and Aanal Patel.

DISCUSSION
A court has the inherent authority to remand state law claims after federal question claims
have been resolved or dismissed. Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir.
2001). In determining whether remand is appropriate in this cfrcumstance, a court considers
whether the state claw claims involve complex or novel issues of state law, whether state law
claims predominate, whether federal claims remain, and whether the principles of convenience,
fairness, and economy weigh in favor of remand. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and CarnegieMellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988)).

Here, there are no federal claims which remain to be decided and state law claims
predominate. Further, the Court finds that principles of convenience, fairness, and economy weigh
in favor of remand as plaintiff describes his remaining claims as "routine, straight forward claims
under North Carolina state tort law." [DE 57 at 2]. Although this case has proceeded through
discovery and a dispositive motion has been filed, the motion may be considered by the state court
and any inconvenience suffered by defendants does not outweigh the factors which support
remand.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion to remand [DE 56] is GRANTED. The clerk
is DIRECTED to remand this case to Cumberland County Superior Court. The Court has not
considered the remaining pending motions, which shall be remanded for consideration by the state
court.

SO ORDERED, this

U

day of September, 2017.

~~A~

1RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICJUDGE

2