Snyder v. Children's Services, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION and DISMISSAL ORDER as more fully set out in order;. Signed by Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis, III on 03/21/16. (SPT )
2016 Mar-21 PM 03:35
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHILDREN’S SERVICES, INC., et al.,
) Case No. 2:15-cv-01262-HGD
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER
Defendant Children’s Services, Inc. (CSI), has filed a Motion to Dismiss or in
the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and a Renewed Motion to Dismiss or
in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (Docs. 6 & 21). Plaintiff has
filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 23). The parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on July 27, 2015, against
CSI and Thomas Pardee. (Doc. 1, Complaint). She asserts a Title VII claim, based
on alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, against CSI (Counts I and II). She also
Because matters outside the pleadings have been considered by the court and not excluded,
the defendant’s motion has been treated as a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).
Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue raised by defendant before
filing her response to the summary judgment motion. See Doc. 17.
asserts state law claims of invasion of privacy, assault and battery, and outrage
against Pardee and CSI (as Pardee’s employer) (Counts III, IV and V), as well as a
state law claim against CSI for negligent and/or wanton training, supervision, and/or
retention (Count VI).
CSI seeks summary judgment in its favor on the Title VII claims, on the ground
that it did not at any time encompassed in plaintiff’s complaint employ 15 or more
employees and, therefore, is not an “employer” for purposes of Title VII. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Plaintiff has responded, after discovery, that she does not oppose
the summary judgment motion. Therefore, it is ORDERED that CSI’s motion for
summary judgment with regard to the Title VII claims asserted in Counts I and II of
plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED, and Counts I and II of the complaint are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
With regard to the remaining state law claims over which this court has
supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides in relevant part:
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over a claim under subsection (a)2 if—
Subsection (a) of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 refers to claims over which the district court has original
jurisdiction, such as the Title VII claims in this action.
Page 2 of 3
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, . . . .
(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection
(a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily
dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under
subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period
of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer
28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3) and (d). After consideration of the state law claims (Counts
III through VI), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
these claims and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.3 In dismissing
these claims without prejudice, the Court finds that the limitations period for the state
law clams has been tolled during their pendency in this court and will remain tolled
for a period of 30 days from the date of entry of this order.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2016.
HARWELL G. DAVIS, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has suggested that this court remand the state law claims to the Circuit Court of
Calhoun County. However, because the action was not filed there originally and then removed to
federal court, the remaining claims cannot be remanded to that state court. Instead, they must be
dismissed without prejudice.
Page 3 of 3
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?