Pae v. Lawton City of

Filing 29

ORDER denying 9 plaintiff's motion to remand (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 1/17/2017. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHU H. PAE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF LAWTON, a Municipal
Corporation,
Defendant,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ex rel. Department of the Treasury –
Internal Revenue,
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.
Oklahoma Tax Commission,
GE MONEY BANK,
RHONDA BRANTLEY, COUNTY
TREASURER OF COMANCHE
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COMANCHE
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, and
UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF PLAINTIFF,
if any,
Third-Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1198-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, filed November 14, 2016. On December
5, 2016, defendant City of Lawton (“City”) filed its response. Plaintiff has filed no reply. Based
upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On October 5, 2016, plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Comanche County,
State of Oklahoma, alleging the following causes of action against City: (1) quiet title, (2) inverse
condemnation, and (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 14, 2016, City removed this
action to this Court. Plaintiff now moves for an order remanding this case back to the District Court

of Comanche County, State of Oklahoma. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that (1) the Court should
abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over the claims herein since the federal question claim is
substantially predominated by unresolved state law issues; (2) whether an inverse condemnation
claim may be brought in the context of an alleged nuisance abatement is a novel and unsettled issue
of Oklahoma law; and (3) the Oklahoma law claims herein are not part of the same case and
controversy as the federal law claim so that it would be improper for this Court to exercise its
supplemental jurisdiction.
I.

Whether federal question claim is substantially predominated by unresolved state law issues
Plaintiff asserts that this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in this case based

upon R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
Pullman abstention is appropriate when: (1) an uncertain issue of
state law underlies the federal constitutional claim; (2) the state
issues are amenable to interpretation and such interpretation obviates
the need for or substantially narrows the scope of the constitutional
claim; and (3) an incorrect decision of state law . . . would hinder
important state law policies. Such abstention is a “narrow exception”
to the duty of federal courts to adjudicate cases properly before them
and is used only in exceptional circumstances.
Kan. Judicial Review v. Stout, 519 F.3d 1107, 1118-19 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the Pullman
abstention doctrine does not apply in this case. Specifically, the Court finds plaintiff has not shown
that there is an uncertain issue of state law underlying his § 1983 claim, that the state issues are
amendable to interpretation and such interpretation obviates the need for or substantially narrows
the scope of his § 1983 claim, or that an incorrect decision of state law would hinder important state
law policies. The Court further finds that the unresolved state law issue cited by plaintiff – whether
2

defendant’s actions are governed by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act – is an issue
routinely addressed by the courts in the Tenth Circuit exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state
tort claims.
Plaintiff also asserts that plaintiff’s federal question claim is substantially predominated by
unresolved state law issues. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), a court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if that “claim substantially predominates over the
claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction”. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).
When determining whether a state law claim substantially predominates over a federal claim, a court
should consider:
(1) whether there is a substantial quantity of evidence needed to
support the state claims that is not relevant to the federal claims; (2)
whether the state claims predominate substantially in terms of the
comprehensiveness of the remedy sought; and (3) whether the scope
of the issues raised in the state claims shows that those issues
predominate over the issues relevant to the federal claims.
The Arc of the Pikes Peak Region v. Nat’l Mentor Holdings, Inc., Civil No. 10-cv-01144-REB-BNB,
2011 WL 1047222 at *3 (D. Colo. March 18, 2011) (citing Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45
F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff has not
shown that his § 1983 claim is substantially predominated by his state law claims. Specifically, the
Court finds that in his Petition plaintiff adopts and incorporates the same background and factual
allegations into his § 1983 claim as are set forth for his state claims. Further, the Court finds that
plaintiff bases all of his claims on the same alleged course of conduct and alleged injuries suffered.

3

II.

Novel and unsettled issues of Oklahoma law
Plaintiff asserts that supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims is improper because

his state law claims involve complex and novel issues of Oklahoma law. Specifically, plaintiff
contends that whether he may bring his § 1983 claim is contingent upon a novel and unresolved
issue of Oklahoma law regarding the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act and that his claims
regarding the improper application of Oklahoma’s nuisance abatement statutes involve issues that
have been left unresolved by the Oklahoma courts.
Under § 1367(c)(1), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state
law claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law”. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff’s state law claims
do not raise novel or complex issues of Oklahoma law. As set forth above, whether defendant’s
actions are governed by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act is an issue routinely
addressed by the courts in the Tenth Circuit exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state tort
claims. Further, the Court finds the fact that an issue has not been decided by a state court, alone,
does not make that issue novel. See Bain v. Cont’l Title Holding Co., Inc., Case No. 16-2326-JWL,
2016 WL 4415363 at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2016) (finding gaps in case law do not render question
novel or complex for purposes of § 1367(c)); Arc of Pikes Peak, 2011 WL 1047222 at *2 (finding
fact that issue has not been decided by state court, alone, does not make issue novel). Thus, the
Court finds that simply because certain issues involved in plaintiff’s state law claims have been left
unresolved by the Oklahoma courts does not make those issues novel or complex.

4

III.

Part of the same case or controversy
Plaintiff asserts that his claims for quiet title and inverse condemnation do not form part of

the same case or controversy as his § 1983 claim. Under § 1367(a),
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Federal and state law claims satisfy this standard when they “derive from a
common nucleus of operative facts.” Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp.,
379 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff’s state law
claims form part of the same case or controversy as his § 1983 claim. Specifically, the Court finds
that all of plaintiff’s claims are based on the same alleged course of conduct and, thus, derive from
a common nucleus of operative facts.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to

Remand [docket no. 9].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2017.

5