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)

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