Baetens v. Bank of America, N.A.

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's State-Law Claims without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JHer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Catherine Baetens,
Case No. 12-12616
Plaintiff,
Honorable Sean F. Cox
v.
Bank of America,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S STATE-LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2012, alleging the following claims against
Defendant: Count I – R.E.S.P.A. – 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; Count II – Breach of Contract for
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Count III – Violation of MCL §
600.3205a; Count IV – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count V – Request for
Equitable Declaratory & Injunctive Relief; Count VI – Fraud/Misrepresentation; Count VII –
Unjust Enrichment; Count VIII – Innocent/Negligent Misrepresentation; Count IX – Fraud,
Based Upon Silent Fraud and Bad Faith Promises; Count X – Breach of Contract/Wrongful
Foreclosure; Count XI – Violation of MCL § 445.901 et seq.; Count XII – Fair Credit Reporting
Act; Count XIII – Negligence; Count XIV – Negligence Per Se; Count XV – Defamation by
Libel; and Count XVI – Negligence – Malicious Statutory Libel. Although this Court has
federal question jurisdiction over Count I and Count XII, the remaining counts are based on state
law.
The applicable statute regarding supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides, in
1

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 Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s federal claims were
presented to a jury along with Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion
is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s 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, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X,
XI, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI of Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The only claims that remain are Plaintiff’s RESPA claim under Count I and Plaintiff’s

2

Fair Credit Report Acting claim under Count XII.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: July 11, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July
11, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer Hernandez
Case Manager

3