Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00677/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

Andrew J. Athetis, III and Gina L. Athetis,

as surviving parents of Andrew J. Athetis,

IV, deceased, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Town of Gilbert, a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00677-PHX-NVW

ORDER

On May 16, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not

be remanded to state court for adjudication of the remaining state law claims (Doc. 131). In

that order, the Court noted that the basis for federal jurisdiction appeared to have been

extinguished when the parties’ stipulation of dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 was granted (Doc. 122). Defendants filed a Joint Response to Order to Show Cause

Why Case Should Not Be Remanded to State Court (Doc. 136), arguing that this action

should remain in federal court because substantial discovery has been completed and fully

briefed dispositive motions are currently pending before the Court. Plaintiffs filed a

Response to Defendants’ Joint Response to Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be

Remanded to State Court and Request for Remand (Doc. 139) in support of remand.

Thereafter, Defendant Taser filed a request for a leave to file a reply to Plaintiffs’ response

Case 2:09-cv-00677-NVW Document 141 Filed 07/01/11 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 -

to the Court’s order to show cause to address Plaintiffs’ contention that remand is mandatory

in this circumstance (Doc. 140). It is within the Court’s discretion whether to retain

jurisdiction over this case or to remand the remaining claims to state court where all of the

claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See 28 U .S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3). Further briefing on this point is unnecessary; Taser’s request to file a reply

(Doc. 140) will therefore be denied.

In this case, Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims – the only federal claims in this matter

and the only basis for federal jurisdiction – have been dismissed. Where federal law claims

have been eliminated before trial, this Court has discretion to retain, remand or dismiss the

pendent state law claims. See 28 U .S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In considering whether to remand

the remaining state law claims, the Court weighs the “values of judicial economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th

Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In the usual case in which all federal-law

claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988)).

This Court has only set a case management schedule; it has not considered or ruled

on any of the pending substantive motions. Although substantial discovery has been

completed, that discovery will still be useful in the state court litigation of this matter and the

state court judge can rule on the pending motions without any loss of judicial economy.

Whether federal or Arizona expert witness rules apply is irrelevant to the issue of remand and

will not be decided at this time. Additionally, Plaintiffs originally elected to file this matter

in state court; their preference for proceeding in state court weighs in favor of remand.

Considering all of these factors, there is no interest in economy, fairness, or convenience that

warrants this Court retaining jurisdiction. The Court will accordingly remand this case to

state court for adjudication of the remaining state law claims.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for remand (Doc. 139) is granted. The Clerk

shall remand the remaining claims to state court for adjudication.

Case 2:09-cv-00677-NVW Document 141 Filed 07/01/11 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Taser’s Request for Leave to File Reply to

Plaintiffs’ OSC Response or, Alternatively, to Submit Supplemental Authorities (Doc. 140)

is denied.

DATED this 1st day of July, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00677-NVW Document 141 Filed 07/01/11 Page 3 of 3