Jefferson County Commission et al v. Tennant et al
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL the Supreme Court's 85 Judgment being dispositive of Count One of plaintiffs' Complaint, which asserts a numerical equivalence claim under Article I, § 2 of, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Four teenth Amendment to, the Constitution of the United States, and of the same claim comprising part of Count One of the intervening plaintiff's Complaint, Judgment on both claims is entered on behalf of the defendants. Construing defendants' suggestion to dismiss the remaining claims to allow them to proceed in State Court as a motion to dismiss, granting defendants' motion and Dismissing Counts Two and Three of plaintiffs' Complaint, together with the remainder of Count One of the intervening plaintiff's Complaint, without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court. Signed by United States Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King on 1/25/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
PATRICIA NOLAND, as an individual
MANUEL, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly
Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-0989
State; EARL RAY TOMBLIN, in his
capacity as the Chief Executive
Officer of the State of West
Virginia; JEFFREY KESSLER, in his
capacity as the Acting President
of the Senate of the West Virginia
Legislature; and RICHARD THOMPSON,
in his capacity as the Speaker of
the House of Delegates of the West
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
By its Opinion and Order of September 25, 2012, the Supreme
January 3, 2012, as amended on January 4, 2012, and remanded the
Complaint filed November 4, 2011, which assert pendent claims
under, respectively, the numerical equivalence and compactness
requirements of Article I, section 4 of the Constitution of West
See Tennant v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm’n, 133 S. Ct. 3
(2012) (per curiam).
A certified copy of the Supreme Court’s
judgment was filed in this court on October 31, 2012.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is dispositive of Count One of
the plaintiffs’ Complaint, which asserts a numerical equivalence
claim under Article I, § 2 of, and the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to, the Constitution of the United
The Court’s judgment is likewise dispositive of the
plaintiff’s Complaint filed December 3, 2011.
Judgment on both
claims is therefore ENTERED on behalf of the defendants.
Subject matter jurisdiction of the claims so disposed was
premised on the existence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, and on the alleged deprivation under state law “of any
right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the
United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).
This court’s authority
to adjudicate the pendent claims asserted by the plaintiffs and
the intervening plaintiff, each of which arises under state law,
pertains to “any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction” with respect to “all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such original
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
According to applicable principles of law, “trial courts
jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been
Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.
Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634,
itself specifies additional factors that may persuade a district
issue of State law.”
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
On remand, the defendants have urged our attention to the
factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), suggesting that we
“should dismiss the remaining claims to allow them to proceed in
Defendants’ December 3, 2012 Response to Order on
Remand at 3.
We construe the defendants’ suggestion as a motion
to dismiss, which, upon considering the factors discussed in
Shanaghan and Crosby, and in particular the statutory factor
above identified, we believe is well-taken.
The pendent claims in this litigation indeed raise novel
and complex issues of West Virginia law that the courts of the
therefore GRANT the defendants’ motion and DISMISS Counts Two
remainder of Count One of the intervening plaintiff’s Complaint,
without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court.
It is so ORDERED.
January 25, 2013.
For the Court:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?