Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01787/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01787-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony P. Barker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

All Copy Products, LLC; Joseph Blazier 

and Jane Doe Blazier, husband and wife, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01787-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 11). 

The Court now rules on the Motion. 

 On April 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court. 

(Doc. 1 at 8). The Complaint contained both federal and state law claims. On August 20, 

2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question 

subject matter jurisdiction. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contained only state law claims. The following 

day, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 11). 

 In his motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that, because his Complaint no longer 

contains any federal law claims, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case 

must be remanded. The Parties agree that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. 

Further, Defendants agree that the Court does not currently have subject matter 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is likely 

Case 2:12-cv-01787-JAT Document 19 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

to again amend his Complaint to assert federal claims, and, thus, to save the time and 

effort involved in another removal action, the Court should not remand this case unless 

Plaintiff agrees that, after remand, he will not try to amend his Complaint again to 

reassert federal law claims. 

 28 U.S.C.A. section 1447(c) provides that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it 

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447. Both Parties agree that the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. The Court cannot deny a motion to remand based on the hypothetical 

assertion that the Court may, at some time in the future, have subject matter jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s claims. Further, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has 

no power to order Plaintiff to assert whether or not he intends to assert federal claims in 

the future. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 11) is 

granted. The Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to Maricopa County Superior 

Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the fully-briefed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) 

shall remain pending before the Superior Court. 

 Dated this 20th day of December, 2012. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01787-JAT Document 19 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 2