Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01530/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

Theodore J. Hogan & Associates LLC;

Theodore J. Hogan; Christina L. Damitio,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Arizona Corporation Commission; John

Curtis Bradshaw; Ronald Baran; Melissa

D. Deegan; Elaine Roulidis; Lyle Rogers;

United States of America, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01530-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant United States of America's motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction (doc. 9), plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant Waller (doc. 10),

plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court (doc. 11), and the United States of America's

response to plaintiffs' motions (doc. 12). The remaining defendants did not respond.

Plaintiffs originally brought this appeal of an administrative decision by the Arizona

Corporation Commission in the Superior Court of Arizona in Cococino County. Plaintiffs

contend that there were irregularities in the administrative proceedings, the administrative

law judge improperly admitted evidence, and excessive penalties were incorrectly computed.

The action was transferred to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County in June

2011. Joseph Dale Waller, named in the original complaint as a defendant, was served on

Case 2:11-cv-01530-FJM Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 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 -

July 5, 2011. Waller removed the case to federal court on August 4, 2011 (doc. 1), pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). On August 12, 2011, the United States gave notice to substitute

itself as defendant for defendant Waller (doc. 7). Plaintiffs' filed a motion to dismiss

defendant Waller on August 16, 2011, indicating that discovery had shown that Waller was

not a proper defendant to this action (doc. 10). 

As the United States substituted itself as the defendant for Waller, the United States

now requests that we dismiss plaintiffs' complaint against the United States. As both

plaintiffs and the United States agree that the United States is not a proper party, we dismiss

all claims against defendant United States of America.

With the United States dismissed from this action, plaintiffs now seek remand to state

court, arguing that no federal question remains. The United States concurs that the action

should be remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County upon dismissal of

the case against the United States. Once we dismiss all claims over which we had original

jurisdiction, we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In the ordinary case where all federal-law claims are dismissed, 

"the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625

F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

350 n.7, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619 n.7 (1988)). We find that the balance of factors in this case

points towards declining to adjudicate plaintiffs' state administrative law claims. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the United States of America's motion to dismiss

(doc. 9). 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant Waller

(substituted by the United States) on grounds of mootness (doc. 10). 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to remand (doc. 11). 

The clerk shall remand the remainder of this action to the Superior Court of

Arizona in Maricopa County. 

Case 2:11-cv-01530-FJM Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 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 -

The court notes for action by the state court that an LLC cannot represent itself but

must be represented by counsel.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01530-FJM Document 13 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 3