Lacy v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting plaintiff's 10 Motion to Remand; The case is REMANDED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the file regarding C17-1207RSL to King County Superior Court. Per LCR 3(i), case will be remanded 14 days from the date of this Order, on 12/27/2017. signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SARA L. LACY,

Case No. C17-1207RSL

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR REMAND

SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to King
County Superior Court.” Dkt. # 10. Having reviewed the memoranda and declarations

18
19

submitted by the parties, and the remainder of the record, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s

20 motion.
21

Plaintiff Sara Lacy brings this wrongful death action on behalf of her husband,

22
23

Cecil Lacy. On September 18, 2015, Cecil Lacy was killed during an interaction with the

24 police along Washington State Route 529 near his home. Two Tulalip police officers and
25

a Snohomish deputy were involved in the incident. Plaintiff filed an initial complaint on

26
27

September 8, 2016, in King County Superior Court. See Lacy v. Snohomish Cty., No.

28 C16-1551RSL (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 4, 2016), Dkt. # 1-2. The original complaint
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR REMAND - 1

1 alleged only state-law claims against Snohomish County and various employees of the
2

Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office. On October 4, 2016, defendants removed the case to

3
4

federal court, alleging that plaintiff’s state-law claims were “federal claim[s] in disguise.”

5 Lacy v. Snohomish Cty., No. C16-1551RSL (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 4, 2016), Dkt. # 1 at
6

2. On October 24, 2016, this Court remanded the case after confirming that there were no

7
8

federal claims and therefore no basis for federal jurisdiction. Lacy v. Snohomish Cty.,

9 No. C16-1551RSL (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 4, 2016), Dkt. # 9. Additionally, the Court
10

awarded fees to plaintiff after determining that defendants’ removal was not reasonable.

11
12
13
14

Lacy v. Snohomish Cty., No. C16-1551RSL (W.D. Wash. filed Oct. 4, 2016), Dkt. # 13.
On May 30, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in King County
Superior Court, adding Tulalip police officers Tyler Gross and Michael Johnson as

15
16

defendants. Plaintiff believed that Mr. Gross and Mr. Johnson were acting as employees

17 of the Tulalip Tribes, and they were added after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lewis v.
18

Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017) (holding that a lawsuit against a tribal employee in his

19
20

individual capacity does not implicate tribal sovereign immunity). Unbeknownst to

21 plaintiff, however, Mr. Gross and Mr. Johnson were actually “deemed federal
22

employees” based on an agreement between the Tulalip Tribes and the United States.

23
24

Dkt. # 1 at 2. Plaintiff learned of this when the United States substituted itself for

25 defendants Johnson and Gross and again removed the case to federal court on August 10,
26

2017. Dkt. ## 1, 2. On August 16, 2017, plaintiff dismissed defendants Gross and

27
28
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR REMAND - 2

1 Johnson. Dkt. # 8. Now that the United States is no longer a party, plaintiff seeks a
2

second remand to King County Superior Court. 1

3
Plaintiff relies on Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), and

4

5 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), to support her motion for
6

remand. Defendant posits that these cases are “either outdated or inapplicable” because

7
8

they predate 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute. Dkt. # 13 at 3. While

9 there may be some legitimate academic question about whether § 1367 narrowed or
10

merely codified prior Supreme Court precedent, the parties agree that this Court’s

11
12

decision regarding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. See

13 Carlsbad Tech, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (“With respect to
14

supplemental jurisdiction in particular, a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over

15
16

specified state-law claims, which it may (or may not) choose to exercise. A district

17 court’s decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over
18

which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”) (internal citations omitted).

19
As there is no longer any basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to

20

21 preside over the state-law claims. It is appropriate for the state-law claims to be heard in
22

state court. See Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[I]t

23
24

is generally preferable for a district court to remand remaining pendent claims to state

25 court[.]”). Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, the Court finds that plaintiff was not
26
27

1

A separate action against the Tulalip Tribes is pending in Tulalip Tribal Court. See Dkt. # 14,
Ex. B, and Dkt. # 16, Ex. C.
28
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR REMAND - 3

1 attempting to manipulate the forum by adding and subsequently dismissing Tyler Gross
2

and Michael Johnson. Throughout these proceedings, plaintiff desired to have this case

3
4

heard in state court. Plaintiff added defendants Gross and Johnson believing in good faith

5 that they were not acting as federal employees, and as soon as the United States became
6

involved, those defendants were promptly dismissed. This “straight-forward tactical

7
8

decision” was not manipulative. See Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491

9 (9th Cir. 1995).
10

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. # 10) is GRANTED. The

11
12

case is REMANDED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the file regarding

13 C17-1207RSL to King County Superior Court.
14
15
16
17

DATED this 13th day of December, 2017.

18
19
20

A
Robert S. Lasnik

21
22

United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR REMAND - 4