Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02166/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02166-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

Terry Graff, surviving parent of Keith

Graff, individually and on behalf of the

Estate of Keith Graff, deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

Taser International, Inc, an Arizona

corporation; Black Businesses I-X; White

Corporations I-X; XYZ Partnerships I-X;

John Does I-X and Jane Does I-X, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2166-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Proceedings to State Court

(Doc. 23) and an Amended Motion to File a First Amended Complaint against Taser

International (Doc. 28). After careful consideration the Court rules the following.

Rule 15(a) authorizes the amendment of pleadings by leave of the Court that “shall

be freely given when justice so requires.” The Plaintiff attempted to settle all of the claims

at a settlement conference on March 21, 2007. Claims between the Plaintiff and the City and

its officers successfully settled; however, the representatives of Taser International, Inc.

declined to attempt settlement. Thereafter, the Court signed an order (Doc.) dismissing all

of the claims against the City of Phoenix and the named officers. Consequently, Plaintiff

currently desires to move forward with this lawsuit against remaining Defendant Taser by

amending the Complaint to accurately depict the parties and claims involved in this case.

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not added any new claims against Taser in the proposed Amended

Complaint. 

Case 2:06-cv-02166-SMM Document 38 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff further requests that this Court remand this matter to state court because the

only jurisdictional basis for removal from state court to this Court will be removed if this

Court grants this motion to amend Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s proposed amended

complaint does not include a federal civil rights claim, as the City and the officers have been

dismissed from the case. Therefore, the only claims remaining are state law causes of action

for negligence, products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty, fraudulent

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful death, all of which were

originally filed in state court prior to removal. The amended complaint includes no new

theory of liability against Taser, instead omitting the claims against the city and its officers

who have settled; thus, the permitting Plaintiff to amend the complaint is in the interest of

justice and will not prejudice Taser. Furthermore, it is in the interests of justice to grant the

motion to remand this matter to state court, from where it was originally removed, because

the jurisdictional basis for the removal has been dismissed in its entirety. See, 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1447(c) and Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2411(2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to File

Amended Complaint Against Taser (Doc. 28).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permitting the filing of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint against Taser in the form attached to the original Motion (Doc.24-2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

Proceedings to State Court (Doc. 23). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as MOOT Taser’s Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 34).

DATED this 12th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02166-SMM Document 38 Filed 05/12/08 Page 2 of 2