Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03061/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03061-0/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

Ernesto Molina, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix Police Department, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3061-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Stipulation to Dismiss the Claim for Civil Rights

Violation and to Dismiss Paul McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry as Defendants with

Prejudice (Doc. # 13). Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 14).

On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court

against the City of Phoenix Police Department, Warren Tittlemier, Jane Doe Tittlemier, Paul

McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserted a claim for damages

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims of negligence, assault and battery. On

December 20, 2006, Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 because Plaintiff's complaint asserted a claim under the law and Constitution of the

United States. 

On January 25, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the civil rights claim and

Defendants Paul McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry (Doc. # 13). In the stipulation, the parties

represent that they "stipulate to dismiss the civil rights violation claim and to dismiss Paul

Case 2:06-cv-03061-JAT Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 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 -

McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry . . . with prejudice." Based on their agreement, the Court

will grant the stipulation. Thus, the civil rights violation claim and Defendants Paul

McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Also on January 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand (Doc. # 14). In the

motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court no longer has jurisdiction of this matter because the

parties stipulated to the dismissal of the civil rights claim and the remaining claims are based

on state law. In response, Defendants counter that Plaintiff's stipulation is a ploy to

manipulate a return to state court and that the Court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over

the pendent state law claims even though the federal civil rights claim has been dismissed.

In the Ninth Circuit, "if a claim 'arising under' federal law existed at the time of

removal, the federal court has discretion to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate pendent state

claims even if at some point the federal claim has been dropped." Millar v. Bay Area Rapid

Transit District, 236 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1116 (N.D.Cal. 2002) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ.

v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903

F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities

Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that a plaintiff may not compel

remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which removal was

based). In deciding whether to exercise discretion to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state

law claims, the factors the Court should consider include judicial economy, convenience,

fairness, and comity. Millar, 236 F.Supp.2d at 1119 (citing Acri v. Varian Associates, 114

F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Court also "may consider whether plaintiff has engaged

in 'manipulative tactics' - i.e., is dismissing federal claims in an exercise in unprincipled

forum shopping." Id. (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 357 (stating, however, that

this concern does not justify a "categorical prohibition" against remand; instead, the court

should take such behavior into account in determining whether the balance of factors

supports remand)). 

Case 2:06-cv-03061-JAT Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 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 - 3 -

Considering the foregoing factors, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to

retain jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. First, issues of judicial economy weigh

in favor of remand. The Court has not ruled on any motions prior to the filing of Plaintiff's

motion to remand. The Court's involvement in this case has been limited to a Rule 16

scheduling conference and the issuance of a pre-trial order. Further, the Court has not

performed any substantive legal analysis that will need to be repeated by the state court and

a trial is not imminent. Second, issues of comity also weigh in favor of remand. While the

state law claims are based on negligence, assault and battery, which claims do not appear to

present novel issues of state law, the Court finds that it is preferable for a state court to apply

state law to Plaintiff's state law claims. Third, issues of convenience and fairness do not

favor either retention of the case or remand. Both the federal and state forums are convenient

in that both are located in Phoenix and Defendants have not provided any evidence to show

that litigating in state court, as opposed to federal court, would otherwise be unfair. Finally,

Defendants submitted no evidence to support their argument that Plaintiff has engaged in

improper forum shopping by dismissing the federal civil rights claim. In fact, the Court notes

that the parties jointly filed the stipulation dismissing the claim such that there was no

unilateral act on Plaintiff's part to render the case subject to remand. 

Accordingly, based on a consideration of the foregoing factors, the Court declines to

exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims and will remand

this case to the Maricopa County Superior Court for the State of Arizona.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation to Dismiss the Claim for Civil Rights Violation

and to Dismiss Paul McMurry and Jane Doe McMurry as Defendants with Prejudice (Doc.

# 13) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. # 14) is

GRANTED;

///

Case 2:06-cv-03061-JAT Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Maricopa County

Superior Court for the State of Arizona. 

DATED this 5th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03061-JAT Document 23 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 4