Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00779/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00779-1/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

Richard Sudberry, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-00779-PHX-NVW

ORDER

On April 16, 2009, this case was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court. 

The Complaint alleged a wrongful death claim under A.R.S. § 12-611, et seq., against all

Defendants and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Cynthia

Mancinelli. On April 21, 2010, the City of Phoenix was granted summary judgment in its

favor on the state law claim. On August 19, 2010, all claims and causes of action against

the remaining Defendants were dismissed with prejudice upon stipulation. No federal

law claims were ever alleged against the City of Phoenix. On January 17, 2012, the

formal mandate of the Court of Appeals issued, vacating the grant of summary judgment

in favor of the City of Phoenix and remanding the case for further proceedings. On

January 19, 2012, the parties were ordered to show cause by February 3, 2012, why this

case should not be remanded to the Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

Case 2:09-cv-00779-NVW Document 132 Filed 02/06/12 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 -

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, if district courts have original jurisdiction over a civil

action, they may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim that forms part of

the same case or controversy. It may decline to do so if certain factors are satisfied:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over

which the district court has original jurisdiction,

(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction, or

(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for

declining jurisdiction.

 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have

been dismissed. 

What remains for determination by a jury is whether the gross negligence of the

Phoenix Police Department contributed to the murder of Plaintiff’s daughter. The Ninth

Circuit held that Plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find

the Phoenix Police Department’s inaction was grossly negligent and a substantial factor in

Plaintiff’s daughter’s death. This claim raises important issues of State law, and the state

appellate courts would provide authoritative redress on appeal after trial if needed. 

Moreover, Plaintiff chose the Arizona courts as the initial forum, and the limited

resources of this Court, now under a formal Declaration of Judicial Emergency, may be

better devoted to cases for which the state court is not an equal forum. See In re Approval

of Judicial Emergency Declared in the District of Arizona, 639 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. Jud. C.

2011). Nevertheless, judicial economy would favor retention of jurisdiction by this Court

if remand would burden a Superior Court judge with duplication of judicial work already

done here. That consideration is diminished in this case because this Court concluded its

work on this case a year and a half ago. Moreover, the systemic benefit of ultimate state

court resolution, in the event of post-trial appeal, of important questions of state law and

policy tips the balance strongly in favor of remand.

Case 2:09-cv-00779-NVW Document 132 Filed 02/06/12 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 THEREFORE ORDERED remanding this case to the Maricopa County

Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-00779-NVW Document 132 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 3