Reinhart et al v. City of Brevard

Filing 17

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Remand to State Court and REMANDED to the General Court of Justice for the State of North Carolina, Superior Court Division, Transylvania County. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/28/11. (nll)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:10cv297

EDWARD ERNEST REINHART, and wife,
JANELLE MARIE BLANCHARD, and son,
TIMOTHY M. REINHART,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE CITY OF BREVARD, a North Carolina )
Municipal Corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
[Doc. 11].
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 24, 2010, the Plaintiffs initiated an action in state court
alleging state law claims for trespass to property and inverse condemnation
as well as constitutional claims pursuant to both the state and federal
constitutions. [Doc. 1-1]. On December 21, 2010, the Defendant removed the
action to this Court alleging that the Complaint contained allegations of
violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. [Doc.

1].
The Defendant answered and counterclaimed. [Doc. 3]. On January 20,
2011, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint in order to delete
the federal question claims and to add a state law claim for nuisance. [Doc.
5]. In the motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel candidly disclosed that if amendment
were allowed, he would move the Court to remand the case to state court.
[Id.]. The Defendant did not respond to the motion and on February 10, 2011,
the Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint. [Doc. 7]. The Amended Complaint, filed on February 17, 2011,
contains no federal question claims but does contain the additional state law
nuisance claim. [Doc. 8]. The Defendant’s Amended Answer with
Counterclaims contains only state law counterclaims. [Doc. 9].
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiffs have moved to remand the case to state court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) which provides that a district court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when the
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. [Doc. 11].
In this case, however, the Court has not dismissed the federal question
claims; instead, the Plaintiffs amended the complaint and deleted them. The

2

Defendant cries foul, arguing that this amounts to nothing more than forum
shopping.1

The Court cannot overlook the fact, however, that defense

counsel never responded or otherwise objected to the Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend the complaint. Nor should it be overlooked that the Plaintiffs have
consistently stated the original federal constitutional claims were merely an
alternative basis for relief which they readily dropped from a lawsuit originally
filed in state court to resolve claims involving the condition of real property in
Transylvania County. [Doc. 16].
[The Plaintiffs] had mixed motives in moving to amend the
Complaint. While [they] clearly wanted to avoid federal court,
[they] also had substantive reasons for amending the pleadings.
[Their] counsel candidly represented to the Court that in drafting
the Complaint, he never intended to [assert anything other than
alternative federal claims]. It was his intention to allege [state law
claims].
...
[Plaintiffs] had a substantive and meritorious reason to amend the
Complaint other than simply defeating federal jurisdiction. Once
the [Court finds] the amendment to be made in good faith, the
decision to remand to state court reside[s] within the discretion of
the trial court.
Harless v. CSX Hotels, Inc., 389 F.3d 444, 448 (4 th Cir. 2004).
The Court thus finds that post-removal amendment of a complaint which

1

The Defendant relies on Lambert v. Gates County, 2001 WL 34556317
(E.D.N.C. 2001), which is inapposite to the case at hand because that court found the
plaintiff had no reason to drop all federal claims except to forum shop.

3

has the effect of eliminating federal questions does not divest this Court of
subject matter jurisdiction. Id.; Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,
350 n.7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1998); Wood v. Durham County Bd.
of Educ., 2011 WL 723048 **3 (M.D.N.C. 2011). This Court may, nonetheless,
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims and
remand the action to state court. Harless, 389 F.3d at 448-49. This discretion
may be exercised “upon a proper determination that retaining jurisdiction over
the case would be inappropriate” considering “the principles of economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity[.]” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 357.
The filing of the motion to remand effectively halted the case while the
motion remained under advisement. Therefore, the case remains in the
earliest stage of litigation; indeed, an initial attorneys’ conference has not even
occurred. Henry v. UBC Product Support Center,Inc., 2008 WL 5378321
(N.D.W.Va. 2008) (noting discovery had not yet occurred). When a plaintiff
eliminates federal claims at an early stage in the litigation, remand to state
court best serves the considerations of economy, convenience, fairness and
comity. Wood, supra.; Dominion Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Value Options,
Inc., 2009 WL 580326 **5 (M.D.N.C. 2009); Green v. Baltimore City Police
Dept., 2011 WL 335868 (D.Md. 2011). The remaining claims in this action are

4

founded purely in North Carolina law based on real property located within
that state and a North Carolina state court is better suited to adjudicate those
claims. Id. (citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct.
1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). “Needless decisions of state law [by federal
courts] should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice
between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of
applicable law.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726. All of the above-stated reasons
provide this Court with “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to
exercise jurisdiction.” Cohill, 484 U.S. at 351. The Court therefore, in its
discretion, remands this matter to state court.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
[Doc. 11] is hereby GRANTED and this action is hereby REMANDED to the
General Court of Justice for the State of North Carolina, Superior Court
Division, Transylvania County.
Signed: November 28, 2011

5