Payton v. Town of Maringouin et al
Filing
119
SUA Sponte ORDER OF DISMISSAL and on Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(1), all federal claims asserted against defendants Edward James and Dwayne Bourgeois by Plaintiff Cynthia Payton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDIC E. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims, and these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending deadlines, including the pretrial conference and trial, are CANCELLED; and judgment shall be entered in this case. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 7/8/2021. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CYNTHIA PAYTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
TOWN OF MARINGOUIN, ET AL.
NO. 18-563-JWD-EWD
SUA SPONTE ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AND ON JURISDICTION
I.
Introduction
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte following the Court’s June 21, 2021, Ruling
and Order, (Doc. 118), on the pending motions for summary judgment in this case, (Docs. 87, 100,
102, 103). In short, the Court granted the motions in part and denied them in part. (Doc. 118 at
79.)
More specifically, the motions were granted in that all federal claims asserted by Plaintiff
Cynthia Payton (“Plaintiff”) against all defendants were dismissed, except those against pro se
defendants Edward James (“James”) and Dwayne Bourgeois (“Bourgeois”), who did not join in
the motions. (Id. at 79–80.) The Court also denied the motion without prejudice as to all state law
claims pending the determination of certain issues. (Id.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(f)(1), the Court gave Plaintiff fourteen (14) days to address why the federal claims
against James and Bourgeois should not be dismissed for the same reasons why the Court
dismissed the federal claims against the similarly situated defendants RJ’s Transportation, LLC,
(“RJ’s”) and Patrick Ventress (“Ventress”). (Id. at 2, 79.) The Court also advised the parties that,
if James and Bourgeois were dismissed (and thus if all federal claims were dismissed), it was
JURY
highly likely the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state law claims. (Id. at 79.)
The Court now turns to the federal claims against James and Bourgeois and to the
jurisdictional analysis highlighted above. The Court will address each in turn.
II.
Federal Claims against James and Bourgeois
Over fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the Court’s Ruling and Order. (Doc. 118.) To
date, Plaintiff has filed no response regarding James and Bourgeois. Thus, Plaintiff has waived
any opposition to their dismissal. See Payton v. Town of Maringouin, No. 18-563, 2021 WL
2544416, at *26 (M.D. La. June 21, 2021) (deGravelles, J.) (collecting authorities on waiver).
Even without any waiver, the Court finds that the claims against James and Bourgeois should be
dismissed, for all the reasons given in the Court’s prior ruling as to RJ’s and Ventress. (See Doc.
118 at 73–76.) Thus, the federal claims against James and Bourgeois will be dismissed.
III.
Jurisdictional Analysis
“With all federal claims having been dismissed . . . , the Court will now ‘look to the
statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to the common law factors of judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’ to decide whether to exercise its discretion to
‘relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims.’ ” Conway v. Louisiana Through DPS&C,
No. 18-33, 2021 WL 357357, at *1 (M.D. La. Feb. 2, 2021) (deGravelles, J.) (quoting Enochs v.
Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346
(5th Cir. 2008) (noting that “no single factor is dispositive”) and Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (setting forth the common law factors))). “The Court is also instructed
to guard against improper forum manipulation, though that does not appear to be a factor here.”
2
Id. (cleaned up). “The Court must ‘consider and balance each of the factors to determine’ how to
exercise its discretion.” Id. (quoting Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159 (citing Mendoza, 532 F.3d at 346)).
“The statutory factors are: (1) whether the state claims raise novel or complex issues of
state law; (2) whether the state claims substantially predominate over the federal claims; (3)
whether the federal claims have been dismissed; and (4) whether there are exceptional
circumstances or other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Enochs, 641 F.3d
at 159 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c))). Here, those factors weigh strongly in favor of declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The state law malicious prosecution claim appears complex
and was the subject of a disputed motion for partial summary judgment. (See Docs. 87, 90, 96.)
“[T]he second and third factor weigh strongly against retaining jurisdiction, as the ‘state law claims
predominate over the non-existent federal claims’ and this court ‘dismissed all federal claims’ ”
Conway, 2021 WL 357357, at *1(quoting Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159). “Neither party cites to a
compelling reason for declining jurisdiction, so the fourth factor is neutral.” Id. (citing Taplette v.
LeBlanc, No. 19-448, 2020 WL 1979652, at *3 (M.D. La. Apr. 7, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 19-448, 2020 WL 1978363 (M.D. La. Apr. 24, 2020)). Thus, three
of the four factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction (and two heavily so); consequently, “the
statutory factors weigh strongly in favor of declining jurisdiction.” See id. (reaching this
conclusion when only the second and third factors weighed “strongly against retaining
jurisdiction”)).
“The Court now turns to the common law factors of ‘judicial economy, convenience,
fairness, and comity.’ ” Id. at *2. “These considerations include whether extensive or substantive
motions have been filed and/or ruled on, whether a scheduling order has been issued, whether
hearings have been held, the relative convenience of the relevant state and federal courthouses,
3
and whether it will prejudice either party to have the state law claims heard in state court.” Id.
(quoting Pullins v. Hancock Whitney Bank, No. 19-00006, 2021 WL 96246, at *12 (M.D. La. Jan.
11, 2021) (Dick, C.J.) (citing Hicks v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 564 F. App'x 747, 749 (5th Cir.
2014))).
Here, the common law factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction. Though the Court has ruled on the above dispositive motions, the Court has yet to
substantively rule on any motion for summary judgment dealing with any state law claims. In fact,
“there is no indication that the district court had any ‘substantial familiarity’ or was intimately
familiar with the [Louisiana] state law claims[.]” Id. (quoting Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159–160)
(quoting Parker v. Parsley Petro. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 1992)))
Further, no pretrial conference or hearing has been held; indeed, the pretrial conference is over a
month away, and the trial date is two (2) months away. There is also no indication that this federal
forum is more convenient than the state forum, and there is no reason why either side will be
materially prejudiced by having these claims heard in state court. And, as another section of this
Court stated, “considering the docket backlog created in this Court by the COVID-19 pandemic,
the Court finds that the best use of judicial resources for this Court and the state court is to have
the state court preside over a purely state law claim.” Id. (quoting Pullins, 2021 WL 96246, at
*12). Lastly, like this Court’s finding in Conway:
The other common law factors also weigh in favor of sending this
case to state court. Second, concerning convenience, “as the judicial
economy factor suggests,” pursuing the case in state court “would
not [ ] cause[ ] any financial inconvenience to the parties because
they would not have had to duplicate any of their previous efforts or
expenses.” Enochs, 641 F.3d at 160 (citing Mendoza, 532 F.3d at
347). . . . “Third, it [would] certainly [be] fair to have [ ] the purely
[Louisiana] state law claims heard in [Louisiana] state court, and
there is nothing to indicate that either party would have been
prejudiced by” sending this case to Louisiana state court. Id. (citing
4
Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580,
588 (5th Cir. 1992)). “And fourth, comity demands that the
‘important interests of federalism and comity’ be respected by
federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction and ‘not as
well equipped for determinations of state law as are state courts.’ ”
Id. (quoting Parker & Parsley, 972 F.2d at 588–89). Thus, as in
Enochs, “[t]he convenience, fairness, and comity factors each
certainly favors remand, and the overall balance of the common law
factors weighs heavily in favor of remand.” Id.
Conway, 2021 WL 357357, at *2.
Conway also concluded with the final reasons for declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction in this case:
Ultimately, “[a] district court has ‘wide discretion’ in deciding
whether it should retain jurisdiction over state law claims once all
federal claims have been eliminated.” Id. at 161 (citing Guzzino v.
Felterman, 191 F.3d 588, 595 (5th Cir. 1999)). But:
“Our general rule is to dismiss state claims when the
federal claims to which they are pendent are
dismissed.” Parker & Parsley, 972 F.2d at 585
(citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir.
1989)); see Carnegie–Mellon, 484 U.S. at 351, 108
S. Ct. 614 (noting that when the federal claims are
eliminated at an “early stage” of the litigation the
district court has “a powerful reason to choose not to
continue to exercise jurisdiction”); Gibbs, 383 U.S.
at 726, 86 S. Ct. 1130 (“Certainly, if the federal
claims are dismissed before trial, even though not
insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims
should be dismissed as well.”); Brookshire Bros.,
554 F.3d at 602 (noting that “the general rule is that
a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over
remaining state-law claims when all federal-law
claims are eliminated before trial”); Beiser v. Weyler,
284 F.3d 665, 675 (5th Cir. 2002) (noting that where
“no other grounds for federal jurisdiction exist, the
court must ordinarily remand the case back to state
court”). Indeed, the Supreme Court has for nearly
half a century cautioned federal courts to avoid
“[n]eedless decisions of state law[.]” ...Gibbs, 383
U.S. at 726, 86 S. Ct. 1130.
5
Id. Under these circumstances, the Court will decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and
they are dismissed without prejudice.
Id. at *3. For these and all the above reasons, the Court will follow the same course in this case.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(1), all federal
claims asserted against defendants Edward James and Dwayne Bourgeois by Plaintiff Cynthia
Payton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending deadlines, including the pretrial conference
and trial, are CANCELLED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that judgment shall be entered in this case.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 8, 2021.
S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6
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?