Elliott v. Mason County et al

Filing 64

ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, striking remaining state law claims in 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12

MEGAN ELLIOTT, in her personal
capacity, MICHAEL B. SMITH, as
personal representative of the Estate of
TIM ELLIOTT, deceased,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 17-6067 RJB
ORDER DECLINING TO
EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING
STATE CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

MASON COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

This matter comes before the Court on the January 28, 2019 order to show cause. The
Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the order to show cause and the file herein.

20

On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff Megan Elliott filed this case in connection with the

21

shooting death of her father, Tim Elliott, by Defendant Mason County Sheriff’s Department

22

Sergeant Trevor Severance. Dkt. 1 and 23. The Amended Complaint asserts federal

23

constitutional claims for violation of Mr. Elliott’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable

24

seizures and for violation of Ms. Elliott’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right to the
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - 1

1

companionship of her parent. Dkt. 23. It also makes state law claims for negligence, gross

2

negligence, battery, and outrage. Id. The Amended Complaint seeks damages, attorneys’ fees,

3

and costs. Id.

4

All federal claims and the claims for battery and outrage have been dismissed. Dkts. 53

5

and 61. In the event all federal claims were dismissed, the Plaintiffs moved the Court for an

6

order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of negligence and

7

gross negligence, in a footnote of the response to the motion for summary judgment. In the

8

January 28, 2019 Order, the Court ordered the parties to show cause, if any they had, why the

9

Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the negligence and

10

gross negligence claims without prejudice. Dkt. 61. The Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment of the negligence and gross negligence claims (Dkt. 53) was renoted. The parties

12

responded to the order to show cause. Dkts. 62 and 63. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court

13

should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the Defendants urge the Court to retain

14

it. Id. The matter is ripe for decision.

15

STATE LAW CLAIMS AND EXERCISE OF SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental

17

jurisdiction over a state law claims if: (1) the claims raise novel or complex issues of state law,

18

(2) the state claims substantially predominate over the claim which the district court has original

19

jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,

20

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

21

“While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is

22

triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367 (c), it is informed by the values of

23

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999,

24
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - 2

1

1001 (9th Cir. 1997)(internal citations omitted).

2

Here, two of the four conditions in § 1367(c) are present. As above, all Plaintiffs’ federal

3

claims have been dismissed. Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has

4

original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

5

the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, the remaining state claims “raise novel or

6

complex issues of state law” under § 1367(c)(1). In particular, the issues surrounding the

7

Defendants’ defense under RCW 4.24.420 raise novel and complex issues of state law. These

8

are issues for which the state court is uniquely suited. Because state courts have a strong interest

9

in enforcing their own laws, See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill,484 U.S. 343, 352 (1988),

10

the value of comity is served by this Court declining jurisdiction. Further, the values of

11

economy, convenience, and fairness may well be served by this Court’s declining to exercise

12

supplemental jurisdiction. See Acri at 1001.

13

Moreover, Washington’s statute of limitations does not appear to be a problem under 28

14

U.S.C. 1367(d). Artis v. District of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 598 (2018)(holding that

15

“§1367(d)’s instruction to toll a statute of limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e. to

16

stop the clock” on the relevant state statute of limitation).

17
18
19
20

This Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state law
claims of negligence and gross negligence without prejudice.
The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding the state law claims of
negligence and gross negligence (Dkt. 53) and all remaining deadlines should be stricken.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

23

to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

24
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - 3

1
2
3
4

Dated this 1st day of February, 2019.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE - 4