G&G Black Ranch et al v. Summit County et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion to Amend Complaint and Remand to State Court. Case Closed. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 12/12/2017. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
G & G BLACK RANCH, LLC, and GLEN
BLACK, an individual

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00816

v.
District Judge Dale A. Kimball
SUMMIT COUNTY, and COALVILLE
CITY,
Defendants.
Before the court is G & G Black Ranch LLC, and Glen Black’s (Collectively “Plaintiffs”)
Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 25). Having reviewed the
parties’ briefs and applicable law, the court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated both the Utah and Federal
Constitution, as well as breached a duty of care, when the city issued a temporary business
license to a traveling circus that constructed carnival like structures adjacent to the Plaintiffs’
mink farm. Plaintiffs allege that the lights and sounds from the carnival caused the Plaintiffs’
minks to suffer miscarriages and still births resulting in damages of $224,190.
This case was originally filed in the Third District Court in Summit County on June 26,
2017. On July 18, 2017, the Defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction. This case was properly removed because the Plaintiff asserted a
claim under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.

1

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this motion seeking to amend their complaint to
remove the Federal Constitutional claim, and also asks the court to remand this case to state
court.
DISCUSSION
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Is Granted.
Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’ attempt to amend the complaint is futile because the
case should be dismissed notwithstanding the proposed amendments. The grant or denial of leave
to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is a matter within the discretion of the trial
court. Although leave to amend is generally freely granted, it will not be permitted where the
proposed amendment will be futile, or where the request is untimely and unduly prejudicial to
the opposing party. Castleglen, Inc., et al. v. R.T.C., 984 F.2d 1571 (10th Cir. 1993).
Here, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs’ amendment would be futile. This case is still in
its early stages and the court has yet to make any dispositive rulings. The Defendants have not
shown that they would be prejudiced by allowing the Plaintiffs to remove their federal claim.
The court therefore GRANTS plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint to remove its federal
claim.
2. The Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction.
The normal procedure after granting a request to amend a complaint would be for the
Plaintiffs to file the amended complaint, after which the Court would determine whether to retain
jurisdiction of the state law claims or to remand the case. However, in the interest of judicial
economy, the Court finds no reason to postpone the inevitable. Based on the allegations in the
proposed complaint (Dkt. No. 25), the court hereby considers the Federal Constitutional claim to

2

be voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff, which leaves only state law claims to be litigated in this
lawsuit.
The remaining question is whether the court should exercise its discretion under 28
U.S.C. § 1367 to retain supplemental jurisdiction over this lawsuit (based on the amended
complaint), or to remand the case. “When the balance of [judicial efficiency, convenience,
fairness, and comity]… indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federallaw claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain,
the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without
prejudice.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ., v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 347 (1988) (elaborating on its
holding in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)). The Supreme Court
later determined that dismissing a case without prejudice is not the only method for a district
court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id. at 351. Remanding a case back to state
court may better serve the values of judicial efficiency. Id.
Because the Plaintiffs voluntarily removed their federal cause of action early in this case,
and because the court has not made any dispositive rulings on the state claims, the court finds
that it is appropriate to remand this case back to the Third District Court in Summit County.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasoning, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to
Remand (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
DALE A. KIMBALL,
United States District Judge
3