United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS
COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND THIS ACTION TO
L. ROBART United States District Judge
the court are three motions: (1) Plaintiff Mario Katona's
motion for leave to amend his complaint (MFL (Dkt. # 9)); (2)
Defendants' motion to remand this action to state court
(MTR (Dkt. # 8)); and (3) Mr. Katona's motion to appoint
counsel (MTAC (Dkt. # 6)). The court has considered the
motions, the parties' submissions related to the motions,
the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.
Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Mr. Katona's motion to
amend his complaint, GRANTS Defendants' motion to remand
this action to state court, and DENIES as moot Mr.
Katona's motion to appoint counsel.
Katona filed his action on January 23, 2017, in King County
Superior Court for the State of Washington. (See
Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2).) Mr. Katona asserted that Defendants
were liable to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. ¶¶
5.1-5.5, 5.10-5.13.) He also asserted a variety of state law
claims. (Id. ¶¶ 5.6-5.9, 5.14-5.27.)
February 10, 2017, Defendants removed this action to federal
court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Notice
of Removal (Dkt. # 1).) On February 24, 2017, Mr. Katona
filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel.
March 6, 2017, Mr. Katona filed a motion for leave to amend
his complaint to eliminate his federal causes of action.
(See MFL.) In his motion, Mr. Katona states that he
“voluntarily strike[s] and/or dismiss[es]” his
federal causes of action. (Id. at 2.) He also asks
the court “to remand th[e] case for further proceedings
in the Superior Court of King County.” (Id. at
3.) Mr. Katona attached his proposed first amended complaint
to his motion. (FAC (Dkt. # 9-1).) The proposed first amended
complaint contains only state law causes of action. (See
March 7, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to remand the action
to state court. (MTR (Dkt. # 8).) Defendants argue that the
court should remand this case because Mr. Katona seeks to
amend his complaint to omit any federal causes of action.
(Id. at 3-5.)
court now considers Plaintiff's and Defendants'
Mr. Katona's Motion for Leave to Amend the
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides, in pertinent part,
that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter
of course within . . . 21 days after service of a [required]
responsive pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B).
Defendants filed answers to Mr. Katona's complaint on
February 16 and 17, 2017. (2/16/17 Ans. (Dkt. # 4); 2/17/17
Ans. (Dkt. # 5).) Defendants served both answers on Mr.
Katona by mail. (See 2/16/17 Ans. at 6 (attaching
certificate of service); 2/17/17 Ans. at 15-16 (attaching
certificate of service).) Because Defendants served Mr.
Katona by mail, “3 days are added” to the 21-day
time period of Rule 15(a)(1)(B). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified
period of time after beindg served and service is made [by
mail] . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise
expire . . . .”). Accordingly, Mr. Katona had a total
of 24 days following the filing of Defendants' answers in
which he could amend his complaint “once as a matter of
course.” See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B).
Mr. Katona filed his first amended complaint on March 6, 2017
(see FAC)-well with the time limit provided by Rules
15(a) and 6(d). Accordingly, the court GRANTS Mr.
Katona's motion to amend his complaint, and his first
amended complaint is now the operative complaint in this
Defendants' Motion to Remand
Mr. Katona originally pleaded federal causes of action
(see Compl. ¶¶ 5.1-5.5, 5.10-5.13),
Defendants properly removed this action to federal court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). However, now that Mr.
Katona has eliminated the federal causes of action from his
complaint, all parties agree that the matter should be
remanded to state court. (See MTR at 3-5; MFL at 3.)
Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Mr. Katona's state law claims, 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim .