Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HARROD v. CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND, GA, 4:13-cv-63. (2013)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20130611894 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge. Before the Court are Michael G. Harrod's motions to remand this case back to the State Court of Chatham County. ECF Nos. 9; 20. For the reasons stated herein, Harrod's motions are GRANTED. Harrod originally filed this action in the State Court of Chatham County on February 8, 20013. Because Harrod asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 along with his various state law claims, the City of Tybee Island removed the case to this Court based on
More

ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.

Before the Court are Michael G. Harrod's motions to remand this case back to the State Court of Chatham County. ECF Nos. 9; 20. For the reasons stated herein, Harrod's motions are GRANTED.

Harrod originally filed this action in the State Court of Chatham County on February 8, 20013. Because Harrod asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988 along with his various state law claims, the City of Tybee Island removed the case to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. Harrod then filed a motion to amend his complaint to remove any causes of action arising under federal law as well as any allegations related thereto. ECF No. 10.1 This Court granted Harrod leave to amend his complaint. ECF No. 15.

On April 25, 2013, Harrod filed his amended complaint. ECF No. 16. Harrod now reasserts his motion to remand back to state court. ECF No. 20. Tybee "does not oppose [Harrod's] motion to remand but reserves the right to remove the case again if [Harrod] attempts to amend his complaint in state court to reassert or re-allege deferral claims." ECF No. 11. The Court has reviewed Harrod's amended complaint, and notes that it now asserts only state law claims. Id.

"[T]he plaintiff is the master of the complaint, free to avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading only state claims even where a federal claim is also available." Hill v. BellSouth Teleconims., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). Harrod has done just that. Tybee does not oppose Harrod's motions, and the Court finds no reason to prevent Harrod from pursuing this course.

Accordingly, Harrod's motions to remand this case back to the State Court of Chatham County, ECF Nos. 9; 20, are GRANTED.

FootNotes


1. Harrod tiled his first motion to remand contemporaneously with his motion to amend his complaint.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer