Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02362/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02362-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

Reda Mae Palmer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Web Industries Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2362-PCT-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Web Industries, Inc., d/b/a Anderson Chrysler,

Plymouth, Dodge, Jeep’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction. (Dkt. 68.)

On October 29, 2004, Plaintiff Reda Mae Palmer (“Plaintiff”) filed suit regarding a

2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee she purchased from Defendant, a car dealership located in Lake

Havasu City, Arizona. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff alleged claims for violation of the Federal Motor

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 32701 (the “Odometer

Act claim”), Consumer Fraud pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1521, and Breach of Contract. (Dkt.

18.) With respect to her fraud claim, Plaintiff requests punitive damages. (Dkt. 18 at ¶47.)

On January 8, 2007, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

Plaintiff’s federal Odometer Act claim, but denied its request for summary judgment on her

claims for consumer fraud, breach of contract, and punitive damages. (Dkt. 67.) On January

Case 3:04-cv-02362-SMM Document 71 Filed 02/06/07 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 -

12, 2007, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting that the Court dismiss the action

“because of an absence of either a federal question or diversity.” (Dkt. 68.) 

DISCUSSION

Under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, this Court has discretion to retain

jurisdiction over state court claims where the claims on which its original jurisdiction was

based have been dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). To decline jurisdiction under

§1367(c)(3), “the district court must first identify the dismissal that triggers the exercise of

discretion and then explain how declining jurisdiction serves the objectives of economy,

convenience and fairness to the parties, and comity.” Trustees of Const. Industry & Laborers

Health & Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th

Cir. 2003) (Trustees). Although the decision to decline jurisdiction is discretionary, it may

be an abuse of discretion to dismiss state claims where factors of judicial economy,

convenience and fairness to the parties strongly point toward retaining jurisdiction and no

novel or complicated issue of state law is involved. See Trustees, 333 F.3d at 925-26

(ordering dismissal of state claims seven days before trial and after long delays was neither

fair to parties nor efficient use of judicial resources).

In the present case, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental

jurisdiction over the state law claims still pending because significant judicial and party

resources have been expended litigating the viability of the state law claims and

considerations of judicial economy favor retaining jurisdiction. The present case has been

pending in federal court for an extended time, since October 2004. Moreover, the Court is

familiar with the remaining issues, having just resolved cross-motions for summary judgment

on all claims, and substantial time has been invested in the matter. Finally, the case is now

ready for trial and a dismissal would require duplicative proceedings in state court, resulting

in delay. See Munger v. City of Glasgow Police, 227 F.3d 1082, 1088 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly,

Case 3:04-cv-02362-SMM Document 71 Filed 02/06/07 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Dkt. 68.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on April

10, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. before the Honorable Stephen M. McNamee in Courtroom 605, 401

W. Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003. A Final Pretrial Order will forwarded to both

parties setting forth the documents that must be filed in preparation for the hearing. 

DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.

Case 3:04-cv-02362-SMM Document 71 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3