Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department

E.D. Louisiana

Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department

DecidedMarch 2, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-03970

StatusUnknown

This text of Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department (Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department, (E.D. La. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARK P. LOBRE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-3970

PLAQUEMINES PARISH SECTION M (5) GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, et al.

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiff Mark P. Lobre arguing that, because this Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it should exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.1 Defendant Stolthaven New Orleans, LLC responded that it does not oppose remand.2 And defendants Scott Rousselle and the Plaquemine Parish Government did not file a response. Considering the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court issues this Order & Reasons granting the motion to remand. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” “District courts enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim once all federal claims are dismissed.” Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993). In making this decision, courts consider “the common-law factors of ‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 40 F.4th 237, 246 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir.

1 R. Doc. 22. 2 R. Doc. 24. 2016)). “These interests are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and no single factor is dispositive.” Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). “Applying those factors, [the Fifth Circuit holds] that a court generally ‘should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.’” Manyweather, 40 F.4th at 246 (quoting Heggemeier, 826 F.3d at 872). As this case is in its early

stages, these factors favor applying this general rule here. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (R. Doc. 22) is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the 25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of March, 2023.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARK P. LOBRE CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-3970

PLAQUEMINES PARISH SECTION M (5) GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, et al.

ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiff Mark P. Lobre arguing that, because this Court has dismissed all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it should exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.1 Defendant Stolthaven New Orleans, LLC responded that it does not oppose remand.2 And defendants Scott Rousselle and the Plaquemine Parish Government did not file a response. Considering the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court issues this Order & Reasons granting the motion to remand. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” “District courts enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim once all federal claims are dismissed.” Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 1993). In making this decision, courts consider “the common-law factors of ‘judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 40 F.4th 237, 246 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir.

1 R. Doc. 22. 2 R. Doc. 24. 2016)). “These interests are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and no single factor is dispositive.” Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). “Applying those factors, [the Fifth Circuit holds] that a court generally ‘should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial.’” Manyweather, 40 F.4th at 246 (quoting Heggemeier, 826 F.3d at 872). As this case is in its early

stages, these factors favor applying this general rule here. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand (R. Doc. 22) is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the 25th Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, State of Louisiana. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of March, 2023.

________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lobre v. Plaquemines Parish Government Operations Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lobre-v-plaquemines-parish-government-operations-department-laed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack