Federal Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction in Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remand

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court after settling with federal defendants GE and CBS Corporation, who originally removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought removal, asking the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against John Crane. The plaintiffs also reasserted their challenges to the court’s original jurisdiction, but since those issues had already been addressed, only the new argument was considered by the court.

Even though John Crane had not asserted the government contractor defense, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion, stating, “The dismissal of the removing defendants does not eliminate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims.” As the court held: “Despite the fact that the federal defendants have been dismissed and John Crane will not raise the government contractor defense, the considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all weigh heavily in favor of the Court maintaining jurisdiction. After nearly two years, the parties are firmly entrenched in the federal courts. Discovery has been completed, summary judgment motions have been resolved, and the case is ready for trial. Remanding the parties to state court to start the process anew hardly enhances judicial economy. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims arise under general maritime law, ‘regardless of whether they were filed in state court, filed in federal court, or as here, removed from state court to federal court.’ Finally, the Court notes that the remaining defendant, John Crane, would satisfy the elements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is accordingly denied.

Read the full decision here.