Smith et al v. Skipper Marine Holdings, Incorporated et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS. Signed by Honorable Lawrence P Zatkoff. (MVer, )

Smith et al v. Skipper Marine Holdings, Incorporated et al

Doc. 7

Case 2:06-cv-11335-LPZ-RSW

Document 7

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES H. SMITH and BEVERLY B. SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. SKIPPER MARINE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, SKIPPER BUD'S, a division of Skipper Marine Holdings, Inc. And CARVER BOAT CORPORATION, LLC, an affiliated company of Skipper Marine Holdings, Inc., Defendants. _________________________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 27, 2006, in Macomb County Circuit Court. Defendants removed the case to this Court on March 30, 2006. Plaintiffs' Complaint contains the following four counts: Count I Count II Count III Count IV See Complaint. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Count III, because it arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Counts I, II, and IV, however, are based upon state law. Although the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of Implied Warranty; Breach of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and Violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. CASE NO. 06-11335 HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-11335-LPZ-RSW

Document 7

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 2 of 2

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are "compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation of Plaintiffs' parallel state claim for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' state law claims of Breach of Express Warranty (Count I), Breach of Implied Warrant (Count II), and Violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Count IV) are hereby REMANDED to Macomb County Circuit Court. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claim (Count III). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 10, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record by electronic or U.S. mail on April 10, 2006. s/Marie E. Verlinde Case Manager [phone]

2