Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01226/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01226-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Rochelle and Gary Heyniger on behalf of

minor child, D.H., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Arizona State School for the Deaf and

the Blind; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1226-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This action arises upon Plaintiffs’ timely-filed Amended Complaint. (docket

# 10) Upon review of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have, indeed, withdrawn their

federal § 1983 claim and allege state law claims only. This Court concludes that it is

unnecessary to await Defendants’ Reply and thereby cause additional delay on an inevitable

result. See, Rule 1, FRCvP (“These rules . . . shall be construed and administered to secure

the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”) (emphasis added).

“In 1988, Congress amended [28 U.S.C. §] 1447(c) as part of the Judicial

Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988.” Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist.,

236 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1115 (N.D.Cal. 2002). Where an action is removed from a state court,

Congress requires that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis

added). In a pre-1988 case addressing § 1447, the Supreme Court held that a district court

Case 2:08-cv-01226-LOA Document 11 Filed 08/25/08 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

1

 If Plaintiffs were to make a novel argument regarding the application of A.R.S.

§12-821.01 that the Arizona courts have not yet had the opportunity to answer, a district

court must “make a reasonable determination of the results the highest state court would

reach if it were deciding the case.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, n.

7 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sheft, 989 F.2d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.

1993)). A district court “must use [its] best judgment to predict how that [Arizona] court

would decide it.” Capital Dev. Co. v. Port of Astoria, 109 F.3d 516, 519 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 92 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 1996)).

- 2 -

has the discretion to remand pendent state claims “upon a proper determination that retaining

jurisdiction over the case would be inappropriate.” Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill,

484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). Discretionary remand is essential for dealing with pendent claims

“in the manner that best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity

which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine.” Id. In Carnegie-Mellon, the district court

remanded the state claims after plaintiffs amended their complaint to drop their only federal

claim.

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is analyzed on the basis of the pleadings

filed at the time of removal without reference to subsequent amendments. Sparta Surgical

Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc. et al., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir.1998).

There is no contention in Plaintiffs’ Response that Defendants improperly removed this case

to this District Court. The Court finds it unnecessary to engage in speculative analysis of

whether a district court is mandated by § 1441(c) to remand this case to state court or

whether it has the judicial discretion to keep and resolve the pending state claims and

defenses. See, Fent v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 235 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 2000). It

is very early in this litigation, discovery has not yet commenced, and there is no trial date.

Moreover, judicial economy, fairness and comity are better served by having the state courts

address the state claims and defenses alleged herein, especially Defendants’ case-dispositive

contention that Plaintiffs have not complied with Arizona’s Notice of Claim Statute, A.R.S.

§ 12-821.01.1

 See, Crum v. Superior Court, 186 Ariz. 351, 922 P.2d 316 (Ariz.Ct.App.

Case 2:08-cv-01226-LOA Document 11 Filed 08/25/08 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

2

 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which attached an affidavit thereto that was not a

part of the Complaint, should have been filed as a motion for summary judgment that fully

complied with Rule 56, FRCvP, and LRCiv 56.1. McGrath v. Scott, 250 F.Supp.2d 1220-21

(D.Ariz. 2003) and the collection of cases cited therein.

- 3 -

1996) (If the claimant asserts a claim against a public entity and a public employee, the

claimant must give notice to both the public entity and the public employee) and the

numerous cases addressing this statute since the Arizona Supreme Court’s February 2007

decision in Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d

490 (2007).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Cross-motion to Remand this case back to

Maricopa Count Superior Court, docket # 7, is GRANTED and hereby remanding this case

to the Maricopa Count Superior Court for further proceedings. With entry of this remand

order, this case is terminated from this District Court’s docket without prejudice to Plaintiffs’

claims alleged in their Amended Complaint and the defense raised in Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear their own costs and

attorneys’ fees incurred in removing this matter to federal court. Baddie v. Berkeley Farms,

Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1995) (“We hold that plaintiffs’ decision to plead both state

and federal claims in state court and to dismiss the federal claims after removal was not

conduct for which section 1447(c) authorizes the award of fees.”)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss, docket #

5, is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a motion for summary judge in state court.2

DATED this 25th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01226-LOA Document 11 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 3