Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Case 1:12-cv-01455-RLY-TAB Document 29 Filed 09/26/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 117

Provided by: Overhauser Law Offices LLC www.iniplaw.org www.overhauser.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MILLER VENEERS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. CLIFFORD W. BROWNING, KRIEG, DEVAULT, LLP, WOODARD, EMHARD,T MORIARTY, MCNETT & HENRY, LLP, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:12-cv-01455-RLY-TAB

ORDER REMANDING CASE On September 7, 2012, Plaintiff, Miller Veneers, Inc., filed its complaint against Defendants, Clifford W. Browning, Krieg DeVault, LLP, and Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry, LLP (collectively, the Defendants), in Marion Superior Court, Cause No. 49D05-1209-CT-035371. The complaint alleges attorney malpractice regarding the acquisition of patents. The Defendants removed the case to this court on October 9, 2012, based on federal question jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (2008). On August 6, 2013, Plaintiff moved to continue a stay. The court must first determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before issuing a ruling. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Envt, 523 U.S. 83 (1998). Although the court originally found it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), the Supreme Courts recent decision in Gunn v. Minton, leads this court to 1

Case 1:12-cv-01455-RLY-TAB Document 29 Filed 09/26/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 118

conclude that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013) (stating we are comfortable concluding that state legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of 1338(a).). According to Gunn, federal jurisdiction exists over state law claims if a federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. Id. at 1065. As in Gunn, the present case meets the first two prongs, and fails the second two prongs. See id. The third prong requires that the issue be substantial which requires the court to look to the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole. Id. at 1066. As in Gunn, this issue is not important to the federal system as a whole but merely to the parties. In addition, the fourth prong is not met because the balance is in favor of the states as they have a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions. Id. at 1068 (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447, 460 (1978)). Following the reasoning in Gunn v. Minton, the court does not see any distinguishing factors that would make the case before it one of the rare attorney malpractice cases that meets the test for subject matter jurisdiction. The court thus concludes it does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. As such, the court cannot determine Plaintiffs Motion to Continue Stay and hereby REMANDS the case

Case 1:12-cv-01455-RLY-TAB Document 29 Filed 09/26/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 119

back to the Marion Superior Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and REMAND to Marion Superior Court. SO ORDERED this 25th day of September 2013.

__________________________________ ________________ ________________ RICHARD L. YOUNG, YOUNG, CHIEF CHIEFJUDGE JUDGE RICHARD L. United States States District United DistrictCourt Court Southern District District of Southern ofIndiana Indiana

Distributed electronically to registered counsel of record.