Crowell et al v. Cowlitz County et al

Filing 178

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 91 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 98 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 137 Motion to Exclude.(TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5

6 JULE CROWELL, et al.,
7

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C14-5153 BHS

8 v.

CONSOLIDATED FOR
PRETRIAL PURPOSES WITH

9 COWLITZ COUNTY, et al.,

C14-5385BHS

Defendants

10
11 CONMED, INC.,

Intervener/ThirdParty Defendant.

12

C14-5672BHS
ORDER DISMISSING STATE
LAW CLAIMS AND CLOSING
CASES

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor and Third-Party Defendant
Conmed, Inc. (“Conmed”) and Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Cowlitz County
(“County”) and Marin Fox Hight’s (“Hight”) motions for summary judgment on Kuanoni
claims (Dkts. 91 & 98); the Court’s order granting the motion in part, reserving ruling in
part, and requesting the parties to show cause (Dkt. 167); and the parties responses to the
order to show cause (Dkts. 169, 170, & 174). The Court has considered the pleadings
filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and
hereby rules as follows:

22

ORDER - 1

1
2

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff Kele Kuanoni, as the Personal Representative of the

3 estate of his son Cameron Kuanoni (“Kuanoni”), filed a complaint against the County and
4 Hight asserting causes of action for negligence and violation of civil rights. C145 5385BHS, Dkt. 1. On November 21, 2014, the Court granted Conmed’s motion to
6 intervene and consolidate the matter with the above captioned cases for pretrial purposes.
7 Id., Dkt. 30
8

On September 2, 2015, Conmed filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 91.

9 On September 10, 2015, the County and Hight filed a motion for summary judgment.
10 Dkt. 98. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the motions as to Kuanoni’s federal
11 claims, reserved ruling on Kuanoni’s state law claims, and requested the parties to show
12 cause why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
13 Dkt. 168. On November 3, 2015, Conmed, the County, and Hight responded. Dkts. 169
14 & 170. On November 6, 2015, Kuanoni responded. Dkt. 174.
15
16

II. DISCUSSION
The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state

17 law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
18 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As with the other state law claims in these
19 consolidated cases, absent constitutional violations, the issues of negligence under state
20 law and operations of local jails are best addressed by the local courts. Therefore, the
21 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kuanoni’s state law claims.
22

ORDER - 2

1
2

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Kuanoni’s state law claims are

3 DISMISSED without prejudice and all remaining motions in these consolidated cases
4 are DENIED as moot.
5

The Clerk shall close the lead and member cases.

6

Dated this 9th day of December, 2015.

A

7
8

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3