Murphy et al v. CitiMortgage, Incorporated

Filing 3

ORDER declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims Signed by District Judge Sean F Cox. (PPau)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION John Murphy and Marybeth Murphy, Plaintiffs, v. Citimortgage, Inc., Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS Plaintiffs filed this action on March 18, 2010, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs' complaint contains thirteen counts. Although this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Counts I and IV, the remaining counts are based on state law. The applicable statute regarding supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides, in pertinent part, that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when: 1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; 2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; 3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Having reviewed the state-law claims in Plaintiffs' complaint, this Court concludes that Case No. 10-11103 Honorable Sean F. Cox Plaintiffs' state-law claims predominate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). In addition, the Court finds that the potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if Plaintiffs' federal claims were presented to a jury along with Plaintiffs' state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reasons for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims and IT IS ORDERED that Counts II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI , XII and XIII of Plaintiffs' Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. S/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge Dated: March 30, 2010 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on March 30, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/Jennifer Hernandez Case Manager

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?