Bloom Master Fund I LLC v. Capna Intellectual Incorporated ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bloom Master Fund I LLC, No. CV-21-01116-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Capna Intellectual Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order 16 with Notice and for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2). Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 17 13), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 20). The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff’s Verified 18 First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18), which was timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 19 The Amended Complaint omits the prior version’s federal claims, and Plaintiff 20 concedes the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this action. (Doc. 18 21 at ¶ 9); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because Plaintiff alleges it and Defendant Tierra Grow 22 Management, LLC are from Arizona, (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7), there can be no diversity jurisdiction, 23 either. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court, then, completely lacks original jurisdiction over 24 this case. 25 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint notes that the Court may decline to exercise pendent 26 jurisdiction on the state law claims. (Id. at ¶ 10). In fact, nowhere on the record does 27 Plaintiff argue the Court should continue to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 Whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction is a matter of discretion, one in which courts 1 || consider “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants ....° United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 3 Here, if the Court were to decline supplemental jurisdiction, it would necessarily deny Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order as moot. In that case, the 5 || Court sees no prejudice to Plaintiff, as it was Plaintiff who elected to strip this Court of || original jurisdiction. Likewise, the Court sees no prejudice to Defendants, who elected to □□ remove this case from state court. 8 Therefore, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this matter. 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Temporary 11 || Restraining Order with Notice and for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Telephonic Hearing set for July 6, 2021. 14 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this matter to 15 || Maricopa County Superior Court. 16 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2021. 17 18 Ye SL 13 norable'Dian¢g4. Huretewa 0 United States District Fudge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-