Umc Development, LLC v. District of Columbia
982 F. Supp. 2d 13
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs UMC Development, LLC and Jacksophie GSCH, LLC sued the District of Columbia, the Mayor, and several private entities over foreclosure, breach of contract, takings and related claims arising from a 2007 public–private hospital redevelopment project.
- Plaintiffs filed in D.C. Superior Court on May 31, 2013; the District removed to federal court on June 14, 2013 asserting federal-question jurisdiction (constitutional claims).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the District’s removal was procedurally defective because co-defendants SHW-GSE and CMC had not timely consented.
- NFPHC later appeared and filed a notice of removal (with written consent from all defendants); dispute arose whether NFPHC had been properly served and whether its removal was timely.
- The Court held NFPHC was not properly served under D.C. Superior Court Rule 4(j) and thus its removal (filed August 2, 2013 after counsel accepted service July 30, 2013) was timely; however, the Court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the D.C. law claims and remanded those claims to Superior Court, dismissing the federal constitutional claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial removal by District was procedurally defective for lack of consent by SHW-GSE and CMC | Removal defective because all defendants did not timely consent | District: SHW-GSE and CMC were not yet served, so consent not required | Court did not decide this because NFPHC’s independent removal mootified any defect |
| Whether NFPHC’s removal was timely (30-day rule) | Plaintiffs: NFPHC was served earlier via mailing to Mayor/AG, so removal untimely | NFPHC: not properly served; D.C. rules required service on its CEO (Rule 4(j)(2)); removal filed within 30 days of formal service | Court held NFPHC was not properly served until counsel accepted service July 30; its Aug. 2 removal was timely |
| Proper method of service on NFPHC under D.C. law | Plaintiffs: service to Mayor/Corporation Counsel sufficed (Rule 4(j)(1)) | NFPHC: is a separate District instrumentality; Rule 4(j)(2) requires service on its chief executive officer | Court held NFPHC is an instrumentality subject to Rule 4(j)(2); plaintiffs did not comply with either 4(j)(1) or 4(j)(2) |
| Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over D.C. law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 | Plaintiffs: D.C. claims predominate, raise novel/local issues, and related cases are pending in Superior Court; remand appropriate | Defendants: supplemental jurisdiction is authorized and should be exercised | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(c)(1) and (2), severed and remanded D.C. claims; dismissed federal claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (establishes that the 30-day removal period runs from formal service of process)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (removal statutes strictly construed; courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Quality Loan Serv. Corp. v. 24702 Pallas Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, 635 F.3d 1128 (actual notice insufficient to trigger removal period; formal service required)
- Lindsay v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir.) (supplemental jurisdiction authorized but a court may decline under §1367(c) when statutory bases apply)
- Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. of Columbia, 93 F.3d 910 (discusses discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction and considerations of comity)
- Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502 (11th Cir.) (removal statutes construed narrowly)
- Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (discusses municipal sovereign immunity and discretionary-function analysis)
- Aguehounde v. District of Columbia, 666 A.2d 443 (D.C. 1995) (discusses municipal immunity under D.C. law)