Alvarez v. Arizona

Full title: Bianca Alvarez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Arizona, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Mar 6, 2017

No. CV-16-2192-PHX-JAT (DKD) (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2017)

Opinion

No. CV-16-2192-PHX-JAT (DKD)

03-06-2017

Bianca Alvarez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants.

David K. Duncan United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

The presiding District Judge referred this matter to the undersigned for case management purposes. During the Rule 16 scheduling conference, counsel raised the issue that the Court had dismissed, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the federal claims and that the only basis for federal jurisdiction for the state law claims set forth in the Amended Complaint is the Court's supplemental, discretionary jurisdiction. In its Order the Court stated that it "intends to decline the parties' request to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims." (Doc. 20 at 3) Although the parties prefer the federal forum, they also understand that if the federal court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and remand the case, it is better to know of that action at the outset of the case rather than midstream. The undersigned concurs and thus recommends as follows,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court withdraw the reference and consider the issue of possible remand presently.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of his recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 6th day of March, 2017.

/s/_________

David K. Duncan

United States Magistrate Judge