PETERSEN
v.
DOCTOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal court must remand an action if an amended complaint drops all federal claims, even if supplemental jurisdiction was initially proper.
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint in state court, which was removed to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff later amend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supplemental Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff, Daunté Petersen, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on November 8, 2024, by filing a Petition in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. See Petition (Doc. 6; Complaint). Though the Complaint was difficult to understand, Petersen appeared to bring both state law and federal claims against Defendant, Frances Ann Doctor. See id. Doctor timely removed the action to this Court. See Defendant Frances Ann Doctor's Notice of and Petition for Removal (Doc. 1; Notice), filed on December 2, 2024; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446. In the Notice, Doctor contends the Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law.
On December 26, 2024, Petersen filed an amended complaint as a matter of right. See Amended Complaint for Restitution and Damages (Doc. 12; Amended Complaint); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In the Amended Complaint, Petersen brings only state law claims. Amended Complaint at 3–4. He no longer asserts any violations of federal law, and nothing in the Amended Complaint or Notice suggests that the parties are of diverse citizenship. See id. ¶¶ 1, 2; see generally Notice. [fn 1] In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc., v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 WL 96212, at *3 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025) (to be published) (holding that when an action is removed to federal court on federal-question jurisdiction and the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, the court must remand the action if a subsequent amendment to the complaint drops all federal claims), this Court no longer has the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Petersen's state law claims. Given the record before the Court, this action is due to be remanded.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, and to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of that Court. 2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file and terminate any remaining motions and deadlines as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 2025.
Mania Morules Howand
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
lc33 Copies to: Pro Se Party Counsel of Record Clerk, Fourth Judicial Circuit
[fn 1]: In the Amended Complaint, Petersen identifies only the residence of the parties, which alone is not determinative of citizenship. But Doctor failed to invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction and provides no basis for the Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petersen v. Doctor, 2025 WL 96212 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…al law, and nothing in the Amended Complaint or Notice suggests that the parties are of diverse citizenship. See id. ¶¶ 1, 2; see generally Notice.¹ In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc., v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025 WL 96212, at *3 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025) (to be published) (holding that when an action is removed to federal court on federal-question jurisdiction and the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims, the court must remand the action…
-
Rosh Chodesh II Ltd. P'ship v. Wimpfheimer (S.D. Fla. 2025)…3). Although the court's ability to decline jurisdiction is discretionary, the court “ordinarily should kick the case to state court” when all original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 96212, at *5 (Jan. 15, 2025) (parentheses omitted); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018). On occasion, courts have chosen to exercise supplemental jurisdiction o…
-
Doe v. Fenix Int'l Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…be Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court should typically dismiss the pendant state claims as well.”); see also Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 2025 WL 96212, at *11 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025)(“And once [the federal claim] was gone, the court's supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims dissolved too.”). Since this case was removed from state court, see Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1], we'll remand the rema…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Petersen v. Doctor, 2025 WL 96212 (M.D. Fla. 2025)