TWENTY ACRES OF WOOD, LLC v. CITY OF BRUNSWICK, 1:15 CV 867. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160104517
Visitors: 94
Filed: Dec. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Medina County, Ohio, or in the alternative, to remand the state claims and stay the federal claims pending final determination of the state claims. (ECF #7) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine and/or the Colorado River Doctrin
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Medina County, Ohio, or in the alternative, to remand the state claims and stay the federal claims pending final determination of the state claims. (ECF #7) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine and/or the Colorado River Doctrine..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas for Medina County, Ohio, or in the alternative, to remand the state claims and stay the federal claims pending final determination of the state claims. (ECF #7) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine and/or the Colorado River Doctrine and remand the action to state court so that it may be consolidated with an administrative appeal. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the that the Court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims while staying consideration of the federal claims. Defendant opposes the motion to remand the entire action as well as the alternative motion to remand just the state claims. Rather, Defendant proposes that the Court exercise its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.
The Court, having carefully reviewed the arguments and law set forth in the filings of the parties relative to Plaintiff's motion to remand, hereby denies Plaintiff's motion to remand in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
