Boyd v. ERMC, II, LP et al
OPINION AND ORDER: It is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that this case in all remaining respects is remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. It is further ORDERED that defendant ERMC, II, LP's 29 Motion for Su mmary Judgment on the state-law claims and 33 Motion to Supplement are left for resolution by the state court after remand. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. This case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) Copy mailed to Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama as directed.(dmn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
MARTINE D. BOYD,
ERMC, II, LP, a foreign
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Martine D. Boyd charged defendant ERMC,
II, LP, with sexual harassment under Title VII of the
§§ 1981a & 2000e through 2000e-17), and negligence and
original jurisdiction over her federal claims under 28
rights), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (Title VII).
state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
originated in state court and was removed to federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
judgment in favor of ERMC and, thus, because Boyd no
longer has a viable federal claim, the court declines
merits of Boyd’s state-law claims.
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it “has
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Factors to be
Courts are strongly encouraged to dismiss
* Carnegie–Mellon was decided before the passage in
1990 of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which expressly authorized
district courts to decline exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction over state-law claims if all claims within
the court’s original jurisdiction had been dismissed.
analyzing when district courts should decline to
exercise supplementary jurisdiction.
state claims when the federal claims have been resolved
court[s] should decline the exercise of [supplemental]
jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice”
when the federal law claims have been dismissed prior
See also Missildine v. Community Action
remand Boyd’s state claims to state court.
Investments, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201, 1226
(11th Cir. 2010); see also Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe
County, 402 F.3d 1092, 1123 (11th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE
of the court that this case in all remaining respects
is remanded to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
It is further ORDERED that defendant ERMC, II, LP’s
state-law claims and motion to suppplement (doc. no.
33) are left for resolution by the state court after
appropriate steps to effect the remand.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 11th day of March, 2015.
_/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?