Sampson et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan et al

Filing 3

ORDER Declining to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over State-Law Claims. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

John Gilmore Sampson, M.D., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 13-10113

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a
Michigan non-profit corporation, et al.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiffs filed this action against multiple Defendants, asserting federal question
jurisdiction. Although this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Counts I through VII, the
remaining counts are based upon state law. Plaintiffs ask the Court to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over those state-law claims.
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

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, IT IS ORDERED that this Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ STATE-LAW CLAIMS and
Counts VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: January 22, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
January 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager