Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01767/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01767-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (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

David H. Barnes; Trisha Barnes, husband

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1767-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs David H. Barnes and Trisha Barnes’ Motion to

Remand (Doc. # 23). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.

In August 2009, Plaintiffs filed this action in the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Shortly thereafter, Defendants removed Plaintiffs’ action to this Court on the basis that

certain of Plaintiffs’ claims involved alleged violations of federal law. In an October 22,

2009 Order, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims. Hence, all that remain

are Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Plaintiffs now seek to have this action remanded to state

court.

In the Ninth Circuit, “if a claim ‘arising under’ federal law existed at the time of

removal, the federal court has discretion to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate pendent state

claims even if at some point the federal claim has been dropped.” Millar v. Bay Area Rapid

Transit Dist., 236 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.

Case 2:09-cv-01767-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). In deciding whether to exercise discretion to retain

jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims, the factors the Court should consider include

judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Millar, 236 F.Supp.2d at 1119 (citing

Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Court also “may consider

whether plaintiff has engaged in ‘manipulative tactics’ - i.e., is dismissing federal claims in

an exercise in unprincipled forum shopping.” Id. (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S.

at 357).

Considering the above factors, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retain

jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. First, issues of judicial economy weigh in

favor of remand. The Court’s involvement in this case has been limited to a single motion

to dismiss–which addressed only certain of Plaintiffs’ claims–a Rule 16 scheduling

conference and, relatedly, the issuance of a pre-trial order. Further, the Court has not

performed any substantive legal analysis that will need to be repeated by the state court and

a trial is not imminent. Second, issues of comity also weigh in favor of remand. While the

state law claims are based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, whistle blowing

under A.R.S. § 38-352, and loss of consortium, which claims do not appear to present novel

issues of state law, the Court finds that it is preferable for a state court to apply state law to

Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Third, issues of convenience and fairness do not favor either

retention of the case or remand. Both the federal and state forums are convenient in that both

are located in Phoenix and Defendants have not provided any evidence to show that litigating

in state court, as opposed to federal court, would otherwise be unfair. Finally, the Court finds

that Plaintiffs have not engaged in improper forum shopping, as is evidenced by the fact that

Plaintiffs’ opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss their federal causes of action. Although

Defendants complain of Plaintiffs’ decision to file their motion to remand until after the Rule

16 scheduling conference, the Court does not find any bad faith or dilatory motives on the

part of Plaintiffs.

Based on a consideration of the foregoing factors, the Court declines to exercise its

discretion to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims and will remand this case

Case 2:09-cv-01767-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

to the Maricopa County Superior Court. Defendants request for attorneys’ fees and costs is

denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs David H. Barnes and Trisha Barnes’ Motion to

Remand (Doc. # 23) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Maricopa County

Superior Court for the State of Arizona.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01767-JAT Document 27 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3