Opinion
CASE NO. 10-61126-CIV-COHN/SELTZER.
December 6, 2010
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Nadia N. Hemmings's Motion to Remand [DE 36]. The Court has considered the Motion to Remand, Defendant Sheriff Al Lamberti's Response [DE 37], the record in this case, and is otherwise advised in the premises.
The Court notes that no Reply was filed and the time for doing so has passed.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff Nadia N. Hemmings brought this action in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County Florida, for a variety of claims arising out of an alleged sexual assault by Defendant Deputy Eric M. Ferber, a Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protection Investigator. See DE 1. The case was removed to this Court on July 1, 2010 after Sheriff Lamberti filed a Notice of Removal based on federal question jurisdiction. See id. Ms. Hemmings then filed her Amended Complaint [DE 7] on July 15, 2010, and Sheriff Lamberti filed his Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [DE 12] on July 26, 2010. On October 12, 2010, this Court granted in part the Motion to Dismiss, dismissing certain claims, including the federal claim, without prejudice. DE 33. Thereafter, on October 28, 2010, Ms. Hemmings filed her Second Amended Complaint [DE 35], dropping the federal claim and alleging only state law tort claims. On November 3, 2010, Ms. Hemmings moved for remand to state court.II. DISCUSSION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See 13 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice Procedure § 3522 (2d ed. 1984 Supp. 2008). Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists only when a controversy involves a question of federal law or diversity of citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331- 1332. When a case involves additional claims that form part of the same case or controversy as those over which a court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over those additional claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The instant case was removed based on federal question jurisdiction because it involved a question of federal law, and the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.
When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In exercising its discretion, a district court considers "the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," City of Chi. v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), by evaluating "the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims," id. The Eleventh Circuit "encourage[s] district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial." Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004).
This case remains in its early stages. Trial is not set to commence until April 18, 2011, and the discovery deadline of January 26, 2011 has not yet passed. Any discovery already completed will be useful no matter where the case is ultimately resolved. Sheriff Lamberti fears that a remand may delay the case's resolution, but the parties are free to address the issue of their trial date and pretrial deadlines in state court. Sheriff Lamberti's argument that the state claims have a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal law claim is inapposite now that the federal claim is no longer at issue. Finally, a federal court's "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Duran v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding. Inc., No. 09-20411-CIV, 2009 WL 5166261, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2009). The values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity therefore weigh in favor of remand. Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this matter, and will remand the case to state court.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:GRANTED. REMANDED DENIED AS MOOT CLOSE
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [DE 36] is This case is to the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. 10-022817 (04); 3. All pending motions are ; 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, on this 4th day of December, 2010.