Tierney v. Gaudrault et al

Filing 33

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered as follows: For the reasons stated, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 31 .) Based upon this, Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15 ) is hereby ALLOWED IN PART. Plaintiffs claims under the PMPA are dismissed with prejudice. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice. In addition, the court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 21 ) and Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 26 ). This case may now be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS NEIL E. TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN GAUDRAULT, MICHAEL R. SOBON, O’CONNELL OIL ASSOCIATES, INC., GLOBAL MONTELLO GROUP CORP., and LPJ DONUTS, INC., Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Civil Action No. 17-30125-MGM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Dkt. No. 15, 21, 26, and 31) February 14, 2019 MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson has recommended that this court grant in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (as to the claims under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act “PMPA”) and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims by dismissing those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. (Dkt. No. 31.) In short, Judge Robertson concluded that Plaintiff’s claims premised on the PMPA are barred by that statute’s one-year limitations period and should be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Judge Robertson explained that because Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Lawless v. Steward Health Care Sys., LLC, 894 F.3d 9, 20 (1st Cir. 2018) (“When any and all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity often will counsel in favor of declining jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Report and Recommendation notified Plaintiff that he had fourteen days to file an objection. No objection has been filed. Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and noting there are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 31.) Based upon this, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) is hereby ALLOWED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims under the PMPA are dismissed with prejudice. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice. In addition, the court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 21) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 26). This case may now be closed. It is So Ordered. _/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________ MARK G. MASTROIANNI United States District Judge 2

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?