Fields v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 291

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 10/15/12: For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court respectfully declines to relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims against defendants Wharrie and Kelley. (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

NATHSON FIELDS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 10 C 1168

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
This Court dismissed certain federal claims that plaintiff Nathson Fields made
against two former Cook County prosecutors (Wharrie and Kelley) but declined to
dismiss other claims against them and other defendants. The Seventh Circuit ordered
the dismissal of the remaining federal claims against Wharrie and Kelley on the grounds
they were immune from suit. This left only certain state law claims against them. The
Seventh Circuit concluded that this Court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims but remanded for consideration of whether the Court should decline to
exercise that jurisdiction. See Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505, 518-19 (7th Cir. 2012).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim if it raises a novel or complex issue of state law, it substantially
predominates over the claims over which the federal court has original jurisdiction, the
court has dismissed all the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or there are
other compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. This Court has not dismissed all of the

1

remaining claims over which it has original jurisdiction – there are numerous federal
claims against defendants other than Wharrie and Kelley – and the claims against
Wharrie and Kelley most certainly do not predominate over the federal claims that
remain here.
The Seventh Circuit suggested that the state law claims against Wharrie and
Kelley involved challenging legal issues that would be better dealt with in state court.
Fields, 672 F.3d at 518. There is no question that the state law claims will involve
challenging legal issues. There are other significant factors, however, that weigh in
favor of retaining jurisdiction over those claims. “A court deciding whether to retain
jurisdiction pursuant to the factors set forth in § 1367(c) should consider and weigh in
each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.” Hansen v. Bd. of Trs. of Hamilton Se. Sch. Corp.,
551 F.3d 599. 608 (7th Cir. 2008).
The issue of comity is, essentially, the factor the Seventh Circuit cited; it weighs
in favor of relinquishing jurisdiction. On the other side of the scale, there is a substantial
(perhaps a near-total) overlap between the factual background and evidence relating to
the federal claims and that relating to the claims against Wharrie and Kelley. Numerous
witnesses have testimony that is relevant to both sets of claims. If the claims are split
up between two jurisdictions, there will be significant duplication of discovery and other
efforts by counsel and the two courts. In addition, two courts (and perhaps two juries)
will be called upon to consider this highly overlapping evidence. The factors of judicial
economy and convenience thus strongly favor retaining jurisdiction.

2

The issue of fairness arguably cuts both ways. One might argue that Wharrie
and Kelley would get a fairer hearing in state court, but this Court is certain that both
sides of the issues relating to the state law claims against them would get an equally fair
hearing and consideration in either federal or state court. On the other hand, it would
be unfair, in the Court’s view, to require Fields to litigate his overlapping claims in both
courts. Among other things, this might result in conflicting or inconsistent results, and if
nothing else it will greatly increase the time and effort that he and his lawyers will have
to put into litigating his claims.
On balance, the factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. The Court
therefore respectfully declines to relinquish jurisdiction over the state law claims against
Wharrie and Kelley. The Court notes that it makes this ruling without regard to the
possibility that certain federal claims against those two defendants might be reinstated
as a result of Fields’ pending motion for reconsideration.

________________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge
Date: October 15, 2012

3