Jefferson County Commission et al v. Tennant et al

Filing 90

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
AT CHARLESTON

JEFFERSON
COUNTY
COMMISSION;
PATRICIA NOLAND, as an individual
and
on
behalf
of
all
others
similarly
situated;
and
DALE
MANUEL, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs, and
THORNTON COOPER,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-0989

NATALIE
E.
TENNANT,
in
her
capacity
as
the
Secretary
of
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
Virginia Legislature,
Defendants.

JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
By its Opinion and Order of September 25, 2012, the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

reversed

this

court’s

Order

of

January 3, 2012, as amended on January 4, 2012, and remanded the
case

for

further

proceedings,

including

consideration

in

the

first

instance

of

Counts

Two

and

Three

of

the

plaintiffs’

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
Virginia.

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
States.
same

The Court’s judgment is likewise dispositive of the

claim

comprising

part

of

Count

One

of

plaintiff’s Complaint filed December 3, 2011.

the

intervening

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,
is

predicated

on

supplemental

federal

jurisdiction,

which

pertains to “any civil action of which the district courts have
2

original jurisdiction” with respect to “all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction

that

they

form

part

controversy.”

of

the

same

case

or

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

According to applicable principles of law, “trial courts
enjoy

wide

latitude

in

determining

whether

or

not

to

retain

jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been
extinguished.”

Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.

1995).

In

exercising

entitled

to

evaluate

convenience

and

n.11

(4th

any

fairness

judicial economy.”
644

the

Cir.

discretion
of

to

so

“[s]everal
the

parties

afforded,
factors,
plus

we

are

including

concerns

for

Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634,
2011)

(citing

Shanaghan).

Section 1367

itself specifies additional factors that may persuade a district
court
claim,

to

forgo

including

supplemental
where

issue of State law.”

“the

jurisdiction
claim

raises

over
a

a

novel

particular
or

complex

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
State Court.”

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

3

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
State

should

be

given

first

opportunity

to

resolve.

We

therefore GRANT the defendants’ motion and DISMISS Counts Two
and

Three

of

the

plaintiffs’

Complaint,

together

with

the

remainder of Count One of the intervening plaintiff’s Complaint,
without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court.
It is so ORDERED.

DATED:

January 25, 2013.

For the Court:

4