Son v. Baptist Healthcare Affiliates, Inc. et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 29 Motion to Remand. Signed by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 3/24/2015. cc: Counsel(JBM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-337-JGH

JOYCE SON

PLAINTIFF

v.
BAPTIST HEALTHCARE AFFILIATES, INC.
d/b/a BAPTIST HEALTH LA GRANGE, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the second time, Plaintiff has moved to remand this case to state court. At issue is
whether the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims after
she amended her complaint and abandoned her federal law claims. To promote judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court will deny the motion and retain its
jurisdiction.
I.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Oldham Circuit Court on April 8, 2014, pleading state law
claims under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and federal law claims under the Family and
Medical Leave Act. Invoking federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, Defendants
properly removed the entire case to federal court on April 28. Plaintiff moved to remand, but
this Court denied the motion on June 30 because Plaintiff continued to assert FMLA claims.
The litigation moved forward. On July 24, the parties filed a litigation schedule that
contemplated the completion of non-expert discovery by February 1, 2015, and the filing of
dispositive motions by April 3, 2015. The parties entered an agreed protective order, exchanged
interrogatories, produced documents, and took three depositions. After briefing and a telephonic

conference, Magistrate Judge Whalin entertained and denied a motion to compel concerning the
order and length of depositions. At some point during discovery, Plaintiff learned that her
FMLA claims were meritless. Apparently, Defendant decided to terminate Plaintiff before she
requested FMLA leave.1 The exact date when Plaintiff learned this critical fact is unclear, but
the Court has no reason to think Plaintiff has done anything improper. Most likely, Plaintiff
learned that her FMLA claims would fail on or around November 7, when Plaintiff’s immediate
supervisor was deposed.
Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint to retract the FMLA claims on November 26.
The Court granted her motion on December 22. The next day, Plaintiff filed her second motion
to remand.2 Discovery is now complete. Pending the result of this motion, Defendant is
prepared to file a dispositive motion and the Court is prepared to set a trial date.
II.
The question is whether the Court should maintain supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims, even when no federal claims remain. A district court has
“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within
[the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c). But the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
“In determining whether to retain jurisdiction over state-law claims, a district court
should consider and weigh several factors, including the ‘values of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 951-52 (6th Cir.

1

Plaintiff was apparently out of the office when she was terminated. She returned with a doctor’s note to
request FMLA leave, but the decision to terminate her had already been made.
2
Plaintiff initially requested additional time for discovery in the event that this Court denied her motion for
remand. In a telephonic conference, Plaintiff retracted this request.

2

2010) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). “A district court
may also ‘consider whether the plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides
whether to remand a case. If the plaintiff has attempted to manipulate the forum, the court
should take this behavior into account’ in determining whether the balance of factors supports a
remand of the state-law claims.” Id. at 952 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 357).
When all federal claims are dismissed before trial and only state law claims remain, “the
balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding
them to state court if the action was removed.” Id. (quoting Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp.
Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996). Though remand is often the preferred path, “there
is no categorical rule that the pretrial dismissal of federal claims bars a court from deciding
remaining state claims.” Carmichael v. City of Cleveland, 571 F. App’x 426, 434 (6th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Musson Theatrical, 89 F.3d at 1254). Plus, district courts have “broad discretion in
deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.” Id.
Two contrasting Sixth Circuit opinions help illustrate the considerations here. In Harper
v. AutoAlliance International, Inc., 392 F.3d 195, 211-12 (6th Cir. 2004), the Court of Appeals
upheld the district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims
because of four factors: (1) the plaintiff had engaged in forum manipulation by voluntarily
dismissing his federal-law claims after the case had been in federal court for eleven months; (2)
the parties had completed discovery; (3) the defendants’ summary judgment motions were ripe
for decision; and (4) the district court had already invested significant time in the litigation and
was familiar with the facts. In Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 952-53 (6th Cir.
2010), though the district court had some familiarity with the federal law claims and found that
plaintiffs had engaged in forum manipulation, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion

3

when the district court relied on the following factors to remand the state law claims to state
court: (1) the plaintiffs retracted their federal law claims four days after the defendant removed;
(2) the court had not overseen discovery; (3) there was no potentially dispositive summary
judgment motion filed at the time the plaintiffs’ filed the motion to remand; and (4) judicial
economy would not have been served by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.
III.
After reviewing the briefs and hearing the report of a telephonic conference from
Magistrate Judge Lindsay, the Court finds that this case more closely resembles Harper than
Gamel. First, like the movant in Harper, Plaintiff voluntarily retracted her federal claims after
the case had been in federal court for more than seven months. Second, discovery is complete.
Third, while Defendant has not yet filed a summary judgment motion, it intends to do so by the
April 1 deadline. Though this factor is not as compelling as in Harper where Defendant’s
dispositive motion was ripe for review, it is relevant to the fairness inquiry. It is easier to defend
a summary judgment motion under the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure than under the federal
rules. See, e.g., Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 916 (Ky. 2013).
Fourth, in the nearly eight months before Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, this Court
invested some time to this case, approving a litigation plan, reviewed and signed a protective
order, and resolved a discovery dispute.
After all this, the values of judicial economy and comity would best be served by keeping
this case in federal court. It would be unfair to Defendant to remand at this stage of the
litigation. The parties have complied with the litigation schedule and completed discovery under
the impression that dispositive motions would be filed, and a trial conducted, in federal court.

4

Given all of these factors, the fairest and most efficient path to resolving this case lies in federal
court.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. The Court
will set a trial date in the near future.

March 24, 2015

cc:

Counsel of Record

5