Summary
rejecting plaintiffs' argument that they would have pursued available state remedies in state court if not for defendants "gamesmanship in removing their Complaint and then moving for its dismissal"
Summary of this case from Kitras v. TempleOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-12033-TSH
07-22-2013
GENEVIEVE and GLENN STILLMAN, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF NEW BRAINTREE and MARTIN GOULET a/k/a MARTY GOULET individually, and in his capacity as Chair of the Select Board of the Town of New Braintree, Defendants.
Order : re Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (Docket No. 19) on Defendants'
Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 12)
Hillman, D.J.
Having reviewed the Defendants' Limited Objection To Magistrate's [sic.] Report & Recommendation (Docket No. 21), the Court accepts and adopts the recommendation that Count One be dismissed as unripe due the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust state remedies as required. Furthermore, the Court accepts the recommendation that the motion to dismiss Count Two be denied and the matter remanded to State court, but it does so for the reason that after considering the relevant factors , it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' pendent state law claim for violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 12 §§ 11H and 11I asserted in Count Two. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to State court.
____________________________
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 1996)(upon termination of foundational federal claim court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claim(s) based on concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like).