El v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Civil Action No. 2016-1886
| D.D.C. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Princess-Cat El, a Section 8 tenant, sued HUD, Riverstone Owner, LLC, and neighbor Mr. Anthony in D.C. Superior Court alleging Anthony flooded her apartment twice, damaging property and causing homelessness and distress.
- Riverstone’s motion to dismiss in Superior Court was unopposed; Superior Court later dismissed Riverstone for failure to respond.
- HUD removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and moved to dismiss El’s complaint in this Court.
- The Court warned El of her obligation to oppose HUD’s motion and that failure to respond by the deadline could result in the motion being treated as conceded; El did not respond.
- The Court granted HUD’s motion as conceded and dismissed HUD without prejudice.
- Only El’s state-law tort claim against Mr. Anthony for $30,000 remained; the Court considered whether to retain jurisdiction or remand the pendent state claim to Superior Court and chose remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HUD’s motion to dismiss should be denied where plaintiff failed to respond | El did not contest the motion (no opposition filed) | HUD argued dismissal appropriate (moved to dismiss) | Court treated motion as conceded and granted dismissal without prejudice |
| Whether the Court should retain federal jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against Mr. Anthony after federal defendants eliminated | El sought to proceed on state tort claim in federal court | HUD implicitly argued (by seeking dismissal) that federal jurisdiction no longer exists; remand appropriate | Court exercised its discretion to decline pendent jurisdiction and sua sponte remanded the remaining state-law claim to Superior Court |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 762 F.2d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (when federal parties remove under § 1442(a)(1), federal court assumes jurisdiction over all claims but may remand if federal basis disappears)
- Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 775 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (where federal claims are dismissed before trial, factors typically favor declining to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims)