Gig Harbor Marina Inc et al v. City of Gig Harbor Washington

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle GRANTING 8 Motion to Dismiss. (TG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA GIG HARBOR MARINA, INC.; STANLEY STEARNS and JUDITH STEARNS, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GIG HARBOR, a Washington municipal corporation, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF FEDERAL CLAIMS AND REMANDING REMAINING CLAIMS TO STATE COURT

CASE NO. C09-5726BHS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of their federal claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and their motion for remand to state court for the remaining claims (Dkt. 8). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in regard to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby dismisses the federal claims and remands the remaining claims to state court as discussed herein. On November 23, 2009, Defendant removed this matter to federal district court. Dkt. 2. On March 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. Dkt. 8. On April 12, 2010, Defendant responded. Dkt. 11. On April 16, 2010, Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 12.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), to grant the voluntary dismissal of their federal claims and to remand their remaining state law claims to state court. Dkt. 8. Defendant does not oppose this motion. Dkt. 11. However, Defendant requests that the dismissal be with prejudice and that Defendant be awarded attorney fees and costs related to the instant motion. Id. Because the parties agree that the federal claims should be dismissed, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss those claims. Whether a motion for voluntary dismissal should be with or without prejudice is a matter committed to the Court's discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). This case is yet in its early stages and no discovery has occurred. The City of Gig Harbor has failed to show that it will be unfairly prejudiced by an order of dismissal without prejudice or that the work performed by its attorneys cannot be useful in any future litigation. Therefore, the Court dismisses the federal claims without prejudice and declines Defendant's request for attorney fees and other costs. Finally, the Court remands the remaining claims to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (retaining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims is discretionary). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and remand (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED as discussed herein. The Court DENIES Defendant's request for attorney fees and costs. DATED this 10th day of May, 2010.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge

ORDER - 2