SHAW
v.
RODRIGUEZ
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 held that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims were dismissed.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, amended his complaint to remove all federal claims, prompting an order for the parties to show cause why the case should…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
DALE and KALI,
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is the Court’s Order to Show Cause (the “Order”) (Doc. 16). As the Order explained, pro se Plaintiff amended and removed all federal claims. So the Order required the parties to show cause why the Court should not remand. Defendants responded (Doc. 18). They “have no legal basis in order to show support why this matter should not be remanded.” (Doc. 18 at 1). Plaintiff did not respond. And the Court construes his silence as a desire to remand. See (Doc. 18 at 3). After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). If the Court must consider
First, judicial economy weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Judicial economy is “served when issues of state law are resolved by state courts.” Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F. 3d 1271, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002).
Second, convenience points to retaining jurisdiction—but just barely. The Eleventh noted, “as far as the parties are concerned, it would be most convenient to try every claim in a single forum.” Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Laboratories, Inc., 803 F. 3d 518, 539 (11th Cir. 2015).
Third, fairness considerations do not favor jurisdiction here. Each “litigant who brings supplemental claims in [federal] court knowingly risks the dismissal of those claims.” Id. On the flip side, every removing defendant risks remand when federal claims get dismissed. What’s more, this case is in its infancy. Plaintiff sued in state court three months ago. And Defendants
2021 WL 1741018, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2021). And fourth, comity cuts against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. “It is a bedrock principle that ‘needless 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.’” Ameritox, 803 F. 3d at 539 (quoting Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726). At bottom, the above weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. So the Court declines it and remands. Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F. 3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
2. This action is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that Court.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 26, 2022.
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966)
- Lewis v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002)