James v. Apache Junction, City of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 David James, No. CV-23-00832-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 City of Apache Junction, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The court granted in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to 16 dismiss, dismissing both of plaintiff David James’s federal claims. (Doc. 77.) The court 17 deferred ruling on the rest of both motions pending the parties’ statements addressing 18 whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. 19 (Doc. 77 at 16–17.) James seeks remand to state court (Doc. 78) while defendants argue 20 the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction and grant summary judgment on the 21 remaining state-law claims (Doc. 79). 22 In the previous order, the court favored declining jurisdiction over the remaining 23 claims because there was a controlling and novel question of state law at issue: whether 24 the notice of claim James submitted to defendant City of Apache Junction was valid. (Doc. 25 77 at 16–17.) Defendants concede this issue “would generally favor remand” but they “will 26 abandon the argument” to avoid remand to state court. (Doc. 79 at 2.) They further contend 27 issue preclusion resolves the merits of all remaining state-law claims. (Doc. 79 at 2–8.) 28 Determining whether to retain jurisdiction requires the court to weigh a variety of 1 factors, including convenience and comity. See Exec. Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. 2 Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994) (simplified), overruled 3 on other grounds by California Dep’t of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087 (9th 4 Cir. 2008)). But as the Supreme Court has recognized, “in the usual case in which all 5 federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward 6 declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon 7 Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), superseded by statute on other grounds by 8 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when, as here, “federal 9 law is not where the real action is,” the case should ordinarily be “kick[ed] . . . to state 10 court.” Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 32 (2025.) Defendants do 11 not provide any convincing basis to apply anything other than the ordinary rule. (See Doc. 12 79 at 8–10.) 13 State courts are better positioned to interpret and apply Arizona law, regardless of 14 the notice of claim issue. See Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1173–74 (9th Cir. 2022) 15 (“[N]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to 16 promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of 17 applicable law by the state courts.”) (simplified). The state court is better suited to resolve 18 the state-law claims and is equally capable of determining the applicability of issue 19 preclusion. 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the remaining portions of the motion to dismiss (Doc. 28) and || motion for summary judgment (Doc. 67) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal in state court. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case is REMANDED to the Pinal County 6 || Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 7 Dated this 20th day of February, 2025. 8 9 A)/ . py Una Me EK Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-