Pepper v. Garrett
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER REMANDING CASE TO UNION COUNTY STATE COURT. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on May 3, 2010. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E L DORADO DIVISION C H R I S T Y S. PEPPER v. W E N D E L L GARRETT, DDS ORDER N o w on this 3rd day of May, 2010, comes on for consideration d e f e n d a n t ' s Motion To Dismiss (document #7), and from said motion, a n d the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit Court of Union C i v i l No. 10-1013 DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF
C o u n t y , Arkansas, alleging that defendant "violated both federal and state statutes prohibiting sexual harassment in the work
She also alleged that defendant's conduct was such that it be offensive to a civilized society and would not be
t o l e r a t e d , " language which appears to invoke a cause of action for i n t e n t i o n a l infliction of emotional distress, or "outrage," under A r k a n s a s law. 2. presence D e f e n d a n t removed the case to this Court based on the of a federal question, failed and to now moves that to dismiss, has
e n o u g h employees for a cause of action to exist against him under f e d e r a l or state law, and that the conduct alleged does not suffice t o plead a claim of outrage under Arkansas law. 3. I n response, plaintiff concedes that defendant does not
h a v e at least fifteen employees, the number required to trigger the
She does not concede that the number of employees is
f e w e r than that required to trigger the provisions of the Arkansas C i v i l Rights Act, and she argues that she has sufficiently pled a c l a i m of outrage. 4. I t is clear following plaintiff's concession that there
i s no federal question in this case, and that the Motion To Dismiss s h o u l d be granted as to the federal claim of sexual harassment. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may decline to exercise
s u p p l e m e n t a l jurisdiction where it has dismissed all claims over w h i c h it has original jurisdiction -- a course of action suggested b y plaintiff -- and the Court finds that appropriate in this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion To Dismiss ( d o c u m e n t #7) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted insofar as it seeks dismissal of
p l a i n t i f f ' s claim under federal law, and that claim is dismissed w i t h prejudice. The motion is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of
p l a i n t i f f ' s state law claims. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the C i r c u i t Court of Union County, Arkansas. I T IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN U N I T E D 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?