IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PENDLETON DIVISION

DENISE WILLIAMS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORROW COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the state of Oregon, KAREN

WOLFF, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-CV-00858-SU

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff, Denise Williams, moves to dismiss the sole federal claim in her complaint against

her former employer, Morrow County, and the county’s human resources director, Karen Wolff

(“defendants”). She moves to remand the remaining state claims to state court. Plaintiff and

defendants have conferred and reached an agreement concerning dismissal and remand. For the

reasons set forth below, the federal claim should be dismissed, the case remanded, and removal fees

Page 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 2:15-cv-00858-SU Document 14 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 4
should be reimbursed to defendants. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her amended complaint in the Oregon Circuit Court for Morrow County. 

Notice Removal, at 2. The complaint alleged a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two state

claims. Notice Removal, at 2, 5. Defendants removed the complaint to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Notice Removal, at 2. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss with

prejudice the federal claim, which served as the basis for removal, and moves to remand the case to

state court. Mot. Remand, at 2; Pl.’s Resp. Objs. F & R, at 1. Plaintiff has conferred with

defendants, who agreed to the dismissal and remand provided the Court order reimbursement of the

$400 removal fee paid by defendants. Defs.’ Objs. F & R, at 2. Plaintiff states that she is in

agreement with this proposal. Pl.’s Resp. Objs. F & R, at 1. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, once the opposing party has answered the

complaint, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a claim only by court order and “upon such terms and

conditions as the court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The court has discretion to grant

or deny the motion for voluntary dismissal and to set the terms of dismissal. Westlands Water Dist.

v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996); Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889

F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). However, generally, a “court should grant a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal

prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Although courts often

condition the dismissal on the plaintiff's payment of the defendant's costs, a court is not required to

do so. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 889 F.2d at 921; Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 97. Rather,

Page 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 2:15-cv-00858-SU Document 14 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 4
“the district court has broad fact-finding powers to grant or decline sanctions,” such as removal fees. 

Smith, 263 F.3d as 978.

The court also has discretion in determining whether to remand a case to state court. If a

federal claim existed at the time of removal, the federal court may choose to retain jurisdiction over

pendent state claims, even if plaintiff later dismisses the federal claim. Nishimoto v.

Federman–Bachrach &Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir.1990);Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l

Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir.1998); Armendariz v. Ace Cash Exp., 2013 WL

3791438, at *4 (D. Or. July 19, 2013). However, in exercising this discretion, a court must consider

“the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Nishimoto, 903 F.2d at 715. 

“In a case in which all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of these factors will

generally point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” Id.

(citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988)). Moreover, these factors

general favor remand of the case to state court when available, rather than a dismissal of the case

altogether. Carnegie-Mellon Univ, 484 U.S. at 353. 

DISCUSSION

Here, both parties agree to dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s federal claim. Defendants

do not argue against dismissal, nor do they claim they would suffer any harm as a result of it. Thus,

the federal claim should be dismissed with prejudice. As for removal costs, both sides agree that

plaintiff should pay $400 to defendants. Defendants would not have incurred these costs if plaintiff

had not included the federal claim in her complaint. The Court sees no reason why the costs should

not be ordered. Concerning remand, no federal claims remain after the dismissal of plaintiff’s

Section 1983 claim. Accordingly, “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and

Page 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 2:15-cv-00858-SU Document 14 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 4
comity” weigh in favor of the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining state claims and remanding them. Defendants have agreed to remand. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s lone federal claim should be dismissed and the remaining state claims remanded to state

court.

RECOMMENDATION

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Voluntary Dismissal of Count Three of

Her Complaint and Remand to State Court (Doc. #6) should be GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Section 1983

claim should be DISMISSED with prejudice and the remaining claims should be REMANDED to

state court. In addition, plaintiff should be ORDERED to reimburse defendants for removal fees in

the amount of $400. 

SCHEDULING ORDER

The above Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a United States District Judge

for review. Objections, if any, are due by September 14, 2015. If objections are filed, a response to

the objections is due fourteen days after the date the objections are filed and the review of the

Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this the 31st

 day of August 2015.

___________________________________

Patricia Sullivan

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

 /s/ Patricia Sullivan

Case 2:15-cv-00858-SU Document 14 Filed 08/31/15 Page 4 of 4