3:23-cv-06142

W.D. Wash.

Apr 14, 2025

CAROL VAUGHN, in her representative capacity as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL A. COHEN v. LOREN COHEN, et al.

NO. 3:23-cv-06142-TMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

April 14, 2025

THE HONORABLE TIFFANY M. CARTWRIGHT

NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION: APRIL 11, 2025

CAROL VAUGHN, in her representative capacity as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL A. COHEN, Plaintiff, v. LOREN COHEN, et al., Defendants.

***

WILLIAM NEWCOMER, Plaintiff, v. LOREN COHEN, et al., Defendants, v. AMARA COHEN, individually, and SUSAN COHEN, Trustee of the Michael Arthur Cohen Spousal Equivalent Access Trust, CAROL VAUGHN, individually, and in her representative capacity as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL COHEN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE), and BR NEWCOMER, LLC, Third-Party Defendants.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR REMAND

Loren Cohen, in his individual capacity and as part of his marital estate, Holland Cohen, in her individual capacity and as part of her marital estate, Susan Cohen, as successor trustee of the Michael Arthur Cohen Spousal Equivalent Trust, and Amara Cohen (collectively, the “Parties“) stipulate to remand as follows:

Although this case was initially filed in state court, the United States removed it to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), as an action affecting federal tax liens, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the federal officer or agency removal statute, after “United States of America (Department of Internal Revenue)” was named as a Third-Party Defendant, and 28 U.S.C. § 1444 as an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2410. Dkt. 1. The United States also brought a crossclaim against the Estate and a counterclaim against Loren. Dkt. 18.
This Court previously determined that it had original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1340, 26 U.S.C. § 7402, and 28 U.S.C. § 1345. The Court also previously determined that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
On April 10, 2025, Loren Cohen and the United States finalized a settlement that resolved all claims in this suit asserted by the United States and all claims asserted by Loren Cohen and his related entities against the United States. Subsequently, per stipulation, the Court dismissed these claims. Dkt. 273. The settlement and subsequent dismissal resolved all claims in this suit involving the United States, leaving only claims under state law.
The court has an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, see Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999), and the obligation is continuing even if the issue is neglected by the parties. See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2003).
PC Collections has withdrawn its claim for Declaratory Relief against the United States (and did so in the Pretrial Order which operates as the live pleading), the United States withdrew all its tax claims based on a voluntary settlement, and the Court has dismissed these claims. With no surviving federal claims, that matter should be remanded back to state court. See Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 145 S. Ct. 41 (2025) (withdrawal of federal claim before trial destroys federal-question jurisdiction even though it previously had supplemental jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (remand required if at any time it appears the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
In the pretrial conference, the Court noted that Royal Canin U.S.A. was decided in the context of an amended pleading that withdrew the federal claims. The key language in Royal Canin is the voluntary nature of the withdrawal that eliminates the federal controversy in a way that can‘t be appealed. Jurisdiction under § 1367 disappears when the federal claims are withdrawn and can‘t be appealed: “The leftover state claims, after all, are now the entirety of the plaintiff‘s suit. Federal claims are not just subordinate, as in §§ 1367(c)(1) and (2), but gone. And gone for good as well.” Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 33. This contrasts with when the federal claims are dismissed by the court through, for example, a dispositive motion, which gives rise to the possibility of revival through an appeal. Id. Stated another way: “Or more specifically: If a plaintiff files suit in federal court based on federal claims and later scraps those claims, the federal court cannot go forward with a now all-state-claim suit.” See id. at 36. Here, all of the federal-question-jurisdiction-supporting claims and federal parties that necessitated removal have been withdrawn by a settlement, and there is no live federal controversy to support supplemental jurisdiction.
At least one district court in this circuit has applied the reasoning in Royal Canin to a case in which federal question claims were settled. See Rosario v. Natividad Med. Ctr., No. 24-CV-01598-SI, 2025 WL 926456, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025) (“The circumstances here—where plaintiff settled the federal question rather than amended it away—are very similar to those in Royal Canin“).
Regardless of whether Royal Canin controls, under cases like Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) and Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), when the federal claims are dismissed before trial, and although the decision is otherwise discretionary, absent some compelling reason, the remaining state law claims should be remanded out of principles of comity and the limited role federal courts should play in resolving exclusively state-law matters in a non-diversity case.
Here, the parties stipulate that regardless of whether Royal Canin controls, the remaining state law claims should be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND DATED this 14th day of April, 2025.

TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC

By: /s/ Adrienne D. McEntee

Adrienne D. McEntee, WSBA No. 34061

E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

Toby J. Marshall, WSBA No. 32726

E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

936 North 34th Street, Suite 300

Seattle, WA 98103

Telephone: (206) 816-6603

Attorneys for Loren Cohen individually

By: /s/ Jack B. Krona Jr

Jack B. Krona Jr., WSBA No. 42484

Email: j_krona@yahoo.com

5020 Main Street, Suite H

Tacoma, WA 98407

Telephone: (253) 341-9331

Attorney for Holland Cohen and Marital Community, in the underlying Case No. 23-2-07988-0, and Attorney for Loren and Holland Cohen and Marital Community in the underlying Case No. 23-2-09267-3

KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP

By: /s/ Eric R. Laliberte

Eric R. Laliberte, WSBA #44840

Email: elaliberte@kellerrohrback.com

Perry Maybrown, WSBA #61550

Email: pmaybrown@kellerrohrback.com

1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3400

Seattle, WA 98101-3052

Attorneys for Amara Cohen and Susan Cohen

ORDER

The remaining state law claims in the suit, asserted by and between the Parties to this stipulation, are remanded to Pierce County Superior Court. The Clerk is directed to take all procedural steps necessary to effectuate the remand.

The Parties are hereby excused from all trial and pretrial dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 14th day of April, 2025.

THE HONORABLE TIFFANY M. CARTWRIGHT

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary