WHITLEY
v.
NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction is likely improper when a plaintiff amends their complaint to drop all federal claims, leaving only state law claims.
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint that led to removal to federal court based on federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff then fil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Remand cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff, Michael E. Whitley's, Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 20; Motion), filed May 16, 2025. Upon review of the Motion and Whitley's Second Amended Complaint for Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. 19; Second Amended Complaint), filed May 16, 2025, which Whitley filed in response to the Court's Order (Doc. 10; Order to File an Amended Complaint), entered May 5, 2025, the Court finds it appropriate to direct Defendant, Bill Leeper, to file an expedited response to the Motion.
Leeper removed this action contending the Court had original jurisdiction over Whitley's civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. See Notice of
Removal (Doc. 1; Notice), filed April 23, 2025, at ¶¶ 2, 3. But in the Second Amended Complaint, Whitley brings only one claim, for “Reimbursement of Expenses Under Florida Law." See Second Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12–15. He disclaims that he seeks relief under federal law. Id. ¶ 1. Because Whitley has clarified that he pursues only a state law claim and there is no apparent basis for the court to exercise original jurisdiction over that claim, the Court cannot discern any claim over which it has original jurisdiction. As such, the Court notes that supplemental jurisdiction is likely improper. See Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc., v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25–26 (2025) (holding that when an action is removed to federal court on federal question jurisdiction and the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, the court must remand the action if a subsequent amendment to the complaint drops all federal claims).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
On or before May 29, 2025, Defendant, Bill Leeper in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Nassau County, shall respond to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 20).
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of May, 2025.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
lc33 Copies to: Pro Se Party Counsel of Record