Snowberger v. The City of Tracy City, Tennessee et al
Filing
25
ORDER granting (21) Motion to Remand in case 1:13-cv-00068-HSM-WBC; granting Motion to Remand in case 4:13-cv-00025-HSM-WBC. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/7/14. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00068-HSM-WBC, 4:13-cv-00025-HSM-WBC (Copy of file sent to the Clerk of Grundy County Circuit Court)(GRE, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
ROBBY ALAN SNOWBERGER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF TRACY CITY, TENNESSEE, )
and OFFICER TONY BEAN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 1:13-cv-68
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter
ORDER
On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint and Remand Case to the Circuit Court of Grundy County, Tennessee, at
Altamont.” (Doc. 21). In his Motion, and his proposed amended complaint (see Doc.
22), Plaintiff indicated that, “[a]fter limited discovery and a careful review of the facts,”
he intended to amend his Complaint in order to “strike[] all federal question claims and
add[] additional Tennessee common law negligence claims” (Doc. 21 at 1-2). Because
Plaintiff intended to proceed only as to questions of state law, he argued that this Court
would lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action after his amendment, and thus
moved the Court to remand this action to state court. (Doc. 21 at 1, 3). Defendant Bean
responded, stating that he had no objections to Plaintiff’s amendment or to Plaintiff’s
request that this Court remand the proposed amended complaint to Tennessee state
court.
(Doc. 23).
Defendant City of Tracy, Tennessee did not file a response to
Plaintiff’s Motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a) provides that “leave to amend shall be freely given where
justice so requires.” Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend is appropriate “in absence of any
apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive . . .,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the
amendment, etc. . . ” Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 905 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In this case, the Court discerns no improper
motive or delay in Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. Neither Defendant has objected to the
amendment, let alone indicated that Plaintiff’s request was the result of an improper
motive. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) will hereby supersede any previously filed
complaint in this action.
28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)
(emphasis added); see also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107-08,
61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Stroud v. Ward, 883 F.2d 76, 1989 WL 96420, at *1
(6th Cir. 1989). If at any time before the entry of judgment it appears that a district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action removed from state court, 28 U.S.C
§ 1447(c) directs the court to remand the case. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint contained
federal claims at the time of removal, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains no federal
cause of action and the parties to this action are not diverse; thus, the basis for the
Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this action has been extinguished. The Court hereby
REMANDS this action to the Circuit Court for Grundy County, Tennessee.
2
The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to transmit the file in this case to the Clerk
of Court for the Circuit Court for Grundy County, Tennessee.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2014.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?