McNealy v. Becnel et al

Filing 344

ORDER denying 276 Motion for Summary Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's state law claims against Saudi Refining are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/5/2017. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEWTON MCNEALY,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2181

DARRYL J. BECNEL, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (2)
ORDER

Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Saudi
Refining, Inc. (“Saudi Refining”). 1 Plaintiff Newton McNealy opposes Saudi Refining’s
motion for summary judgment requesting that Plaintiff’s state law claims be dismissed
with prejudice. 2 For the following reasons, Saudi Refining, Inc.’s motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.
McNealy originally filed this civil action on September 22, 2014, and has been
granted leave of court on multiple occasions to amend his complaint. 3 On January 18,
2016, Saudi Refining filed its first motion for summary judgment. 4 On October 17, 2016,
the Court issued its Order regarding the then pending dispositive motions filed by the
Defendants in this case. 5 In its October 17, 2016 Order, the Court dismissed all of the
Plaintiff’s federal claims against Saudi Refining. 6 The Court deferred on ruling on
whether to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction on McNealy’s state law
claims until after the Court ruled on the other Defendants’ motions for summary

R. Doc. 276.
R. Doc. 313.
3 McNealy’s complaints include Record Document 1 (Complaint), Record Document 37 (Amended and
Supplemental Complaint), Record Document 60 (Second-Amended Complaint), Record Document 114
(Third-Amended Complaint), and Record Document 260 (Fourth-Amended Complaint).
4 R. Doc. 138.
5 R. Doc. 237.
6 See id.
1

2

1

judgment. 7 On February 7, 2017, pursuant to the Court’s Order, Saudi Refining filed its
Second Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims against it. 8
As the Court has now ruled on and granted all Defendants’ motions for summary
judgment with respect to all federal claims against all Defendants, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Saudi
Refining pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c). 9 The remaining state
law claims against Saudi Refining are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Saudi Refining’s Motion for Summary
Judgment 10 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Saudi
Refining are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of June, 2017.
______________________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Id. at 38.
R. Doc. 276.
9 See R. Docs. 341, 343.
10 R. Doc. 276.
7

8

2