Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00009/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00009-7/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

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Valles, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Pima County, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-00009-TUC-FRZ (JCG)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #173) issued by United

States Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin whereby she recommends granting three motions

to dismiss (Doc. #’s 149, 137, 151) for lack of jurisdiction.1

 The Court has reviewed the

parties’ objections and finds that they do not undermine the sound factual and legal analysis

employed by Magistrate Judge Guerin in reaching the correct conclusion that there is no

supplemental jurisdiction in this case. As such, the Court need not repeat the detailed factual

and legal analysis discussed in the Report and Recommendation. The Court only briefly

notes that this case stems from a failed subdivision whereby the purchasers of lots in the

subdivision failed to receive the full value of their property as the defunct subdivision

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 182 Filed 07/31/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

developer did not complete necessary improvements to the land at issue. In their Third

Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege only state law claims for negligence and

misrepresentation against Defendants Parkhurst, Sack and Long Realty, and Mason. Plaintiff

argues that the Court should assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence

and misrepresentation claims as they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with

the federal claims asserted against the Pima County defendant. However, as the Report and

Recommendation discussed in detail, the Fifth Amendment Takings claim and Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process claim asserted against Pima County involve substantially different

factual and legal foundations compared to the state law negligence and misrepresentation

claims. As such, the Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate in this case

as discussed in the Report and Recommendation and therefore rejects Plaintiffs’ objections;

thus, the Report and Recommendation properly concludes that Defendants Parkhurst, Sack

and Long Realty, and Mason should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

While on the topic of supplemental jurisdiction, the Court notes that Magistrate Judge

Guerin issued a separate Report and Recommendation (Doc. #172) as to Defendants Hosack

and Desert Vista Engineering whereby she recommends granting Hosack’s and Desert Vista

Engineering’s motion for summary judgment on the merits based on the economic loss rule.

Additionally, the same Report and Recommendation correctly finds that Hosack and Desert

Vista Engineering are subject to dismissal as the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over

these particular Defendants. See Report and Recommendation at 10, n. 5 (“Although

Defendants Hosack and Desert Vista did not challenge the Court's subject matter jurisdiction,

the Court may consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time and must dismiss

an action if it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.

R. Civ. P. For the reasons stated in this Report and Recommendation recommending that the

District Court grant the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Parkhurst, Mason, Sack, and

Long Realty (Doc. No. 17[3]), Defendants are also entitled to dismissal of Plaintiffs'

negligence claims because the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the claim.”).

Similar to Defendants Parkhurst, Sack and Long Realty, and Mason, the only claim asserted

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 182 Filed 07/31/09 Page 2 of 4
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

As to the remaining issues that were not objected to by the parties, the Court has reviewed

the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Guerin’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous.

- 3 -

against Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering is a state law claim for negligence. The Fifth

Amendment Takings claim and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim asserted against

Pima County involve substantially different factual and legal foundations compared to the

state law negligence claims asserted against Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering; the Court

finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Hosack and Desert Vista

Engineering and these parties are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

The Court notes that Defendants Parkhurst and Mason filed very brief objections whereby

they summarily argue that they should be dismissed with prejudice based on the merits of

their claims pertaining to the economic loss rule and statutes of limitation. However, as the

Court has found that supplemental jurisdiction is lacking as to these specific defendants, their

objections pertaining to the merits of the underlying case are denied.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation as to Defendants Parkhurst, Mason, Sack, and Long

Realty (Doc. #173) is accepted and adopted. The Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. #’s

149, 137, 151) are granted. Defendants Parkhurst, Sack, Long Realty, and Mason are

dismissed from this action without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

(2) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #172) as to Defendants Hosack and Desert Vista

Engineering is accepted and adopted to the extent that the Report and Recommendation

finds that supplemental jurisdiction is lacking as to Defendants Hosack and Desert

Vista Engineering. As such, Defendants Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering are

dismissed from this action without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. #152) filed by Defendants

Hosack and Desert Vista Engineering is denied as moot as they have been dismissed on the

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 182 Filed 07/31/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

separate ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims asserted against these

Defendants. 

(3) As pretrial proceedings still remain in this case, this case is hereby referred back to

Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.

72, and LRCiv 72.1, 72.2, and 72.3 of Rules of Practice of the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona. 

All future filings in this case shall be designated:

CV 08-9-TUC-FRZ (JCG)

DATED this 28th day of July, 2009.

Case 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG Document 182 Filed 07/31/09 Page 4 of 4