Duncan v. Grant, 2:12-cv-00219

Plaintiffs Duncan filed a complaint in Spokane County Superior Court alleging excessive force and various state-law claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983; Defendants removed to this Court on April 25, 2012.
The Court had original jurisdiction over the federal §1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. §1331; a Scheduling Order issued July 17, 2012.
Plaintiffs withdrew damages for wage loss and earning capacity on December 10, 2012; discovery and motions followed, including a May 6, 2013 withdrawal of §1983 claims and May 8, 2013 preclusion of expert witnesses.
Defendants filed stipulations to dismiss the §1983 claims; Plaintiffs sought remand of the remaining state-law claims.
The Court held a hearing May 28, 2013; it denied remand, granted the stipulated dismissal of the federal claims, and retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand when federal claims are dismissed	Plaintiffs seek remand after federal claims are dismissed.	Defendants contend retention of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate.	Remand denied; retain supplemental jurisdiction.
Continuing jurisdiction after elimination of federal claims	Removal basis relied on federal question; argues jurisdiction ends with dismissal.	Supplemental jurisdiction remains discretionary and not automatically destroyed.	Court retains discretion to keep state claims.
Judicial economy and potential manipulation	Proceedings progressed with minimal court involvement; remand would be efficient.	Timing suggests strategy to manipulate forum; remand would delay defense.	Factors weigh against remand; retain jurisdiction.
Legal basis for remand in these circumstances	Argues based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after dismissal.	Removal properly based on federal question; supplemental jurisdiction persists.	No automatic remand; discretionary decision remains with court.

Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Assocs. of Secs. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) (removal jurisdiction and pendent claims influence decisions on remand)
Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1990) (supplemental jurisdiction not destroyed by elimination of federal claims)
Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Intern. Inc., 344 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2003) (supplemental jurisdiction persists after federal claims dismissed)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (balance of economy, convenience, fairness; retain jurisdiction in usual cases)
Miller v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (retention may be appropriate where trial date is imminent)
Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, 64 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1995) (consider whether plaintiff manipulated forum in remand)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 2005) (cases involving original jurisdiction over state-law claims implicating federal issues)
Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (Supreme Court 2013) (original jurisdiction over state-law claims implicating federal issues)