Moore v. Community State Bank

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 17 MOTION to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Community State Bank. Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This case is REMANDED to the Noble Superior Court. Clerk DIRECTED to treat this civil action as TERMINATED. All further settings in this action are VACATED. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 2/8/13. (cc: Noble Superior Court with certified copies of Opinion and Order, Clerk's Judgment and Docket Sheet). (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMUNITY STATE BANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
1:12-cv-425
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION and ORDER

This case was originally filed in Indiana State court and stated a single state-law cause of
action for retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff then amended his Complaint to add a second count
under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).
This second count established a basis for federal jurisdiction and Defendant thus timely removed
the case to this Court on November 28, 2012. Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss [DE 17]
the Dodd-Frank Act count. Plaintiff’s Response to this motion concedes that he has failed to
state a cognizable claim under the Dodd-Frank Act. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[DE 17] is GRANTED and Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
With the federal cause of action now gone from the case, both parties concede that the
case should be remanded to the state court to handle the remaining state law claim. A district
court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court if all federal law claims in
the case have been eliminated and only supplemental state law claims remain. Carnegie-Mellon
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). In order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction
over state law claims, a district court should consider and weigh the factors of judicial economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity. Id.
The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly expressed its preference that district courts remand
cases when no federal claims remain. See, e.g., Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d 875, 882 (7th
Cir. 2008) (“When the federal claim in a case drops out before trial, the presumption is that the
district judge will relinquish jurisdiction over any supplemental claim to the state courts.”);
Contreras v. Suncast Corp., 237 F.3d 756, 766 (7th Cir. 2001); Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193
F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1252 (7th Cir.
1994); Carr v. CIGNA Sec., Inc., 95 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 1996). Given this precedent, there is
no question that remanding this case is the best option. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c), this case is hereby REMANDED to the Noble Superior Court, in Noble County,
Indiana, for redocketing under Indiana state court case number 57D01-1208-PL-008. The Clerk
shall treat this civil action as TERMINATED. All further settings in this action are hereby
VACATED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: February 8, 2013
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2