Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
Page 3 of 5
matter jurisdiction identified in a motion for remand. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c);
Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.
, 483 F.3d 1184, 1213 n.64 (11th Cir. 2007).9. The court should remand this case to state court because(A) while the lawsuit may tenuously concerns a federal question, insofar as
the City of Dallas’
threatened actions could result in an abridgement of
the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, that abridgment had not
occurredeither at the time of filing
original complaint, or of
filing their first amended complaint in state court. Nor, as of the time of this filing, has it occurred.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs’ seek
declaratory relief in the form of a construction of certain terms andconditions within the settlement agreement entered into between theparties, and as a necessary precursor to that relief, seek to enjoin the City from breach based on a misconstruction of the agreement, which itclearly threatened in its November 8, 2011 letter, this civil action doesnot arise under federal law and should be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c);
Bernhard v. Whitney
, 523 F.3d 546, 552 (5th Cir. 2008);
Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund
, 500 U.S. 72, 89 (1991). Accordingly,
Defendant’s allegation that this case arises under
28 U.S.C.1343(a) is incorrect, and the federal court lacks subject matterjurisdiction;(B) notwithstanding the argument articulated
there isa tenuous connection to a federal question, state law predominates in thissuit.
28 U.S.C. §1441(c);
Lang v. Am. Elec. Power Co.
, 785 F. Supp.1331, 1334-35 (N.D.Ind. 1992). The relief sought by Plaintiffs is adeclaration of the rights and obligations between the parties in light of the October 17, 2011 settlement agreement, and a restraint and aninjunction pending such declaration, so as to prevent clearly threatenedaction as a result of
perception the Plaintiffs are in breach of
A tenuous connection is not sufficient: “…
the breach of an agreement that produced the dismissal of an earlier
federal suit” does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court
absent a provision in a court’s order retaining ancillary
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America,
511 U.S.375, 379 (1994). Here, the parties made no attemptto incorporate language in the dismissal order of the prior suit so as to create some species of ancillary jurisdictionin this
court, and t
here is no “independent basis for federal jurisdiction.”
Jennifer Florence Dawson
. Case 3:11-cv-02698-B, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Docket Entry # 12.
Case 3:11-cv-03120-B Document 13 Filed 11/14/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID 181