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.

Camillus Clean Air Coalition v. Honeywell International, Inc.

United States District Court, Second Circuit

September 4, 2013

CAMILLUS CLEAN AIR COALITION; ROBERT and COLLEEN BARTLETT; WILLIAM and MICHELLE BARRINGTON, III; KIM CALVERASE; DANIEL and VERUSKA DANTUONO; DAVID and JULIETTE DEDO; TIMOTHY and SALLY DELANY; BRIAN and TRACY DELLOW; RON GRYZIEC; BRENDA CARPENTER; DOUGLAS and CHARLENE HART; THOMAS and KIMBERLY KSHYNA; MATTHEW and TRACY LICAMELI; JOHN and KATHLEEN MARINELLI; WILLIAM and STEPHANIE MATHEWSON; PETER and JENAFER MEDINA; BRYAN MIGNONE; ELAINE EVERITT; BRIAN and KIMBERLY MURPHY; SCOTT and JILL MUSEMECI; JERRY and KRISTINA PARZYCH; JONATHAN and MARGARET PATCH; TIMOTHY and SHARON PIEPER; FREDERICK and HEATHER PUCHTA; LYNORE and MARK de la ROSA; ROBERT and LORI SMITH; JOEY ST. LOUIS; ROBERT and MEGAN VERTUCCI; and MICHAEL and LYNDA WADE, Plaintiffs,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

KENNETH F. MCCALLION, ESQ., McCALLION & ASSOCIATES, LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

ANTHONY P. RIVIZZIGNO, ESQ., MICHAEL A. FOGEL, ESQ., GILBERTI STINZIANO, HEINTZ & SMITH, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendant.

BRIAN D. ISRAEL, ESQ., CHRISTOPHER A. JAROS, ESQ., GEOFFREY J. MICHAEL, ESQ., ANDREA MASSELLI, ESQ., ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant.

ANDREW J. GERSHON, AAG, OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, New York, New York, Attorneys for Amicus Curia.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand all remaining claims to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See Dkt. No. 52. Defendant opposes this motion. See Dkt. No. 56.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant removed this action to this Court on April 2, 2013. See Dkt. No. 1. On April 4, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. See Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiffs opposed that motion. See Dkt. Nos. 28-29. On April 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 15. By Order dated April 12, 2013, the Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and set a briefing schedule and hearing date for the preliminary injunction motion. See Dkt. No. 24.

The Court heard oral argument regarding Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive relief on May 15, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order, in which it denied Plaintiffs' motion and granted Defendant's motion.[1] See Dkt. No. 49. Finally, on June 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to remand. See Dkt. No. 52.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs assert that the Court should remand this matter to state court for three reasons:

(1) this Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; (2) this Court should not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367; and this Court has never ...


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.