Parmar v. Crawford & Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00878
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

8 NAVEEN PARMAR and MEENA PARMAR, husband and wife and the No. 2:23-cv-00878-BJR 9 marital community comprised thereof; and MEENA & AS LLC, a Washington ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 10 Limited Liability Company, UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR REMAND 11 Plaintiffs,

12 v.

13 CRAWFORD & COMPANY; JOHN 14 LUNA; RYAN TOPOROWSKY; AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY; 15 WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN DOE 16 NUMBER 1; LINDA OH; and SANDRA OH, 17 Defendants. 18

19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. Having reviewed 20 the motion, Defendants’ response, and any reply, the Court rules as follows: 21 1. The basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter was the Plaintiffs’ action 22 against former defendant Wright National Flood Insurance Company (“Wright National”), 23 which Wright National contended presented a federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 4072. Dkt. 24 No. 1. 25 ] 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Wright National were dismissed on June 22, 2023. Dkt. 2 || No. 10. 3 3. With the federal claims dismissed, the Court has discretion whether to retain 4 supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims. 28 U.S.C. § > 1367(c)(3). 6 4. The parties conferred and all Defendants who have appeared in this action 7 stipulated to remand. 8 5. The Court finds that interests of judicial economy, the early stage of this 9 litigation, the issues of state law remaining to be decided, and the absence of prejudice to any 10 party from resolving this matter in state court, weigh in favor of remanding the remaining state-

D law claims. Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9% Cir. 2008) (citing 13 Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). 14 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ 15 || motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall immediately REMAND this matter to the 16 || Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. 17 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 6, 2023. 19 20 Asner eu, 1 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein US. District Court Judge 22 Presented by: 23 RUIZ & SMART LLP 24 25 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Ruiz & SMART LLP UNOPPOSED 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1220 MOTION FOR REMAND ____ Seattle, WA98101 0

1 By: s/ William C. Smart William C. Smart, WSBA #8192 2 William C. Smart, WSBA #8192 3 Kathryn Knudsen, WSBA #41075 McKean J. Evans, WSBA #52750 4 1200 Fifth Avenue, Ste 1220 Seattle, WA 98101 5 Tel: 206-203-9100 6 Fax: 206-785-1702 wsmart@ruizandsmart.com 7 kknudsen@ruizandsmart.com mevans@ruizandsmart.com 8 Counsel for Plaintiffs 9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25