Ware v. United Parcel Service Inc et al
ORDER granting 10 Plaintiff James Ware's motion to dismiss and to remand. Accordingly, Ware's ADA and ERISA claims are dismissed with prejudice, and his remaining claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act is remanded. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/4/2017. (mef)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES D. WARE
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-00492 BSM
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and
Plaintiff James Ware’s motion to dismiss and to remand [Doc. No. 10] is granted.
Ware’s dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits” because “[Ware] previously
dismissed [a] federal-or state-court action based on or including the same claim.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). See Ware v. United Parcel Service, Inc. And Jimmy McClure, No.
4:14CV00740 BSM (E.D. Ark. Nov. 12, 2015), ECF No. 17 (“Plaintiff moves for an Order
dismissing this matter without prejudice.”). Defendants United Parcel Service (“UPS”) and
Jimmy McClure have stipulated to dismissal of Ware’s federal-law claims with prejudice.
Doc. No. 12, at 1. Accordingly, Ware’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) are dismissed with
Although UPS and McClure do not oppose dismissal of Ware’s federal claims, they
ask that the district court retain jurisdiction over Ware’s remaining state claim due to the
“significant progress of litigation in this Court.” Id. “If the district court dismisses every
claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court maintains its broad discretion to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. Thomas v. United
Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1141 (8th Cir. 2014). “Substantial investment of
judicial time and resources, as well as other factors such as convenience, fairness, and
comity, may justify the exercise of jurisdiction over the state claims after the federal [claims
have] been dismissed from the suit.” Murray v. Wal Mart, Inc., 874 F.2d 555, 558 (8th Cir.
1989); State of N.D. v. Merchants Nat. Bank & Trust Co., Fargo, N.D., 634 F.2d 368, 371
(8th Cir. 1980). Aside from granting a voluntary and unopposed dismissal in this case’s
predecessor, this court has not made any substantive rulings in either of Ware’s cases. See
Ware v. United Parcel Service, Inc. And Jimmy McClure, No. 4:14CV00740 BSM (E.D. Ark.
Nov. 12, 2015), ECF No. 18 (granting dismissal). Accordingly, judicial economy is not a
strong factor weighing in favor of retaining jurisdiction over a claim falling solely under the
Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
UPS and McClure claim that sending the case back to state court would be unfair
because it will further prolong resolution, and it is clear that Ware is dismissing his state
claims because he prefers a state forum, but “[t]he fact that . . . a plaintiff might attempt to
manipulate the forum by deleting federal-law claims and requesting remand is a concern
which . . . hardly justifies a categorical prohibition on the remand of all cases involving
pendent state-law claims.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 344, (1988).
UPS and McClure stipulated to dismissal of Ware’s federal claims with prejudice, and very
limited time and/or resources have been invested herein. No basis for supplemental
jurisdiction exists because no issue remains over which this court has original jurisdiction.
Clark v. Iowa State Univ., 643 F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, Ware’s ADA and ERISA claims are dismissed with prejudice, and his
remaining claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act is remanded.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of May 2017.
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?