Hurley v. City of Portland, No. 3:2009cv00706 - Document 25 (D. Or. 2009)
Court Description: Opinion & Order of Remand: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 23 is Granted. This action is Remanded to Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 10/16/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (gm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON THOMAS K. HURLEY, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF PORTLAl'lD, Defendant. Montgomery W. Cobb Cobb & Bosse, LLP 16115 SW 1st Street, Suite 201 Sherwood, OR 97104 Attomey for Plaintiff Jenifer M. Johnston Franco A. Lucchin City Attomey's Office 1221 S.W. Fourth Avenue, #430 POltland , OR 97204 Attorneys for Defendant Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 09-706-PK OPINION AND ORDER KING, Judge: Plaintiff Thomas Hurley initially brought this claim in state court, alleging that his former employer, defendant City of Portland, unlawfully terminated his disability benefits. The original complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, discrimination by retaliation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Oregon law, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of Hurley's First Amendment rights. The City of Portland removed the case to this court on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Following briefing and oral argument on the City of Portland's motion to dismiss, Hurley voluntarily amended his complaint. Hurley's second amended complaint contains only a state law claim for breach of contract. Hurley's unopposed Motion for Remand (#23) is now before the court. Hurley's motion is granted, for the reasons set fOlih below. LEGAL STANDARD A federal court can remand a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time before the cOUli issues a final judgment. 28 U.S.c. § 1447(c). The pmiy opposing the motion for remand has the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). After the court examines possible bases for federal jurisdiction, any remaining doubt favors remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). DISCUSSION A cOUli has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are so related to the claims over which the court has federal question jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A federal district court, however, has discretion to decline Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER supplemental jurisdiction under the conditions set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999,1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en bane). The decision to decline jurisdiction is informed by the "values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity." Id at 1001 (citations omitted). "[I]n the usual case in which all federal claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-lvfellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). When federal law claims are "eliminated at an early stage of the litigation, the District Court [has] a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction." Id. at 351. Moreover, "[n]eedless 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 surerfooted reading of applicable law." United },line Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Here, the Hurley's amended complaint eliminated all of his federal claims. Efficiency, convenience, fairness and comity support remand. Procedurally, this case is still in an early stage. In addition, this case now presents questions of state law best adjudicated in an Oregon court. I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and grant Hurley's motion to remand to state court. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hurley's Motion to Remand (#23) is granted. This action is remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit COUli. Dated this &, day of October, 2009. 311' M. King United States District Judge Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
