Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sage v. Tacoma School District No. 10

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 6, 2017

MAIKA SAGE, Plaintiff,
v.
TACOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 10, et al. Defendants.,

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS ORDER is issued upon consideration of Plaintiff Maika Sage's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 11, Cause No. 17-5775) and Defendants' Motion to Consolidate (Dkt. 21, Cause No. 17-5277). Both matters have been fully briefed. The Court has considered the pleadings and the remainder of the file here. For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand should granted, and Defendants' Motion to Consolidate should be denied as moot.

         I. MOTION TO REMAND

         A. Background.

         Both cases originate from the conduct of Defendants on March 24, 2014. On March 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Pierce County Superior Court, alleging violations of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and constitutional rights under 28 U.S.C. §1983. Defendants timely removed, and the case is now pending in this district as Cause No. 17-5277 (hereinafter, “Sage I”). The Court's original jurisdiction over Sage I is not contested.

         After filing a second complaint with the District and waiting more than sixty days, see RCW 4.96.020(4), on May 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second complaint in Pierce County Superior Court. Defendants timely removed, and the case is now pending in this district as Cause No. 17-5775 (hereinafter, “Sage II”). The Sage II Complaint, the complaint at issue in Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, alleges substantially the same facts as Sage I, but it alleges only state law tort claims, specifically, violations of two state law provisions, RCW 28A.605.020 (parents' right to access school grounds) and Chapter 49.60 (Washington Law Against Discrimination), and two common law claims for tortious interference with a parent-child relationship and negligence. Dkt. 3 at ¶¶43-49.

         Defendants' Notice of Removal in the second-filed case, Sage II, states:

A. Jurisdiction
7. This state-court action may be removed under 28 U.S.C. §1441 because Plaintiff's underlying alleged facts are the same as the previous State-Court Action that was removed to federal court. Together, the underlying facts and claims arise under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States and thus, this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, a federal question. Furthermore, supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367, in particular pendant jurisdiction, applies because . . . underlying alleged facts and named parties are the same as those in Plaintiff's First State-Court Action [Sage I], which was then removed to this Court.

Sage II, Dkt. 1 at ¶7.

         B. Discussion.

         The key question before this Court is whether it has original jurisdiction over Sage II, because if it does not, Sage II should be remanded and Sage II should not be consolidated with Sage I.

         1. 28 U.S.C. §1331.

         The Notice of Removal invokes 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question jurisdiction, which gives district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “[T]he vast majority of cases brought under the general federal-question jurisdiction of the federal courts are those in which federal law creates the cause of action[.]” Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). The “mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction, ” id. at 813, but state law claims ‘arise under' federal law if “vindication of the state right necessarily turns upon ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.