Doe et al v. Walton Verona Board of Education et al
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Deft Vance Sullivan's motion for abstention of exercise of supplemental jurisdiction 56 is DENIED. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 9/24/2012.(ECO)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2011-171 (WOB-CJS)
JANIE DOE, ETC., ET AL.
VS.
PLAINTIFF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WALTON VERONA BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ET AL.
DEFENDANT
This matter is before the court on defendant Vance
Sullivan’s motion for abstention of exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendant
Vance Sullivan (Doc. 56).
The Court concludes that oral
argument on this motion is unnecessary.
Factual and Procedural Background
In this action, plaintiffs, Janie Doe and her parents John
and Elizabeth Doe, allege that defendant Vance Sullivan sexually
harassed, stalked, threatened, and slandered Janie Doe.
After
learning of the harassment, plaintiffs assert that school
officials and the Kentucky High School Athletic Association
(“KHSAA”) never took action to protect Janie Doe or discipline
Vance Sullivan even after he was criminally charged.
Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that some school officials even
condoned Vance Sullivan’s harassment and intimidation of Janie
Doe.
As a result, plaintiffs claim that they suffered harm from
defendants’ conduct and Janie Doe was deprived of her right to
equal access to educational resources and opportunities.
Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action, asserting: (1)
assault and battery against Vance Sullivan; (2) false
imprisonment against Vance Sullivan; (3) violation of Title IX
against Walton Verona Board of Education and the Kentucky High
School Athletic Association; (4) civil rights violations under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against school officials Bill Boyle, Dan
Sullivan, Mark Krummen, Dan Trame, and Kyle Bennett; (5) assault
against John Anderson; and (6) intentional infliction of
emotional distress and outrage against Vance Sullivan and John
Anderson.
Defendant Vance Sullivan filed a motion for abstention of
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law
claims against Vance Sullivan (Doc. 65).1
The motion is ripe for
review.
Analysis
A district court’s decision to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction is one of discretion.
Ritchie v. United Mine
Workers, 410 F.2d 827, 829 (6th Cir. 1969).
A district court
shall have supplemental jurisdiction over claims not within its
1
This Court has handled and ruled on other preliminary matters and motions in
this action, none of which are relevant to the present motion.
2
original jurisdiction if the claims “are so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part
of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (2006).
A district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex
issue of state law, (2) the claim
substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has
original jurisdiction, (3) the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction, or (4) in
exceptional circumstances, there are other
compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2006).
State and federal claims form part of the same case or
controversy when the claims are derived from a common nucleus of
operative fact.
City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522
U.S. 156, 157 (1997).
Plaintiffs’ state law claims against
defendant Vance Sullivan require proof of the actual repeated
harassment of Janie Doe, and plaintiffs’ federal claims require
proof of the school officials’ and the KHSAA’s deliberate
indifference towards that alleged harassment.
The state law
claims against Vance Sullivan involve alleged facts relevant to
the school officials’ and the KHSAA’s knowledge of and
deliberate indifference to the alleged harassment.
3
Therefore,
the claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative fact
and, as such, form part of the same case or controversy.
Defendant Vance Sullivan argues that this Court should
decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under the §
1367(c)(4) exceptional circumstances exception.
Defendant Vance
Sullivan argues that the likelihood of jury confusion is a
compelling reason for this Court to decline the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction.
A potential for jury confusion can
arise when the jury must address “divergent legal theories of
relief.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 727 (1966).
The likelihood of jury confusion in this case is not
sufficiently compelling to rise to the level of an exceptional
circumstance.
Plaintiffs’ state law claims simply require the
jury to determine whether Vance Sullivan’s conduct is sufficient
to establish each intentional tort, whereas plaintiffs’ federal
claims require the jury to determine whether the school
officials’ and KHSAA’s actions in response to Vance Sullivan’s
conduct violate Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The jury will
not have to address divergent legal theories for plaintiffs’
claims against Vance Sullivan.
Additionally, in exercising supplemental jurisdiction, a
court should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness,
and comity.
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351
4
(1988).
Judicial economy supports the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction in this case.
If this Court were to decline
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims
against Vance Sullivan, plaintiffs would have to file a separate
suit against Vance Sullivan in state court.
Plaintiffs then
would have to litigate the entirety of that suit in state court
while simultaneously litigating this action in federal court
over many of the same facts.
In the interest of judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, plaintiffs’
state and federal claims should be tried in one action.
Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the Court being
otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Vance Sullivan’s motion
for abstention of exercise of supplemental jurisdiction (Doc.
56) be, and is hereby, DENIED.
This 24th day of September, 2012.
5
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?