Hogan v. Visio Financial Services Inc.

Filing 5

ORDER remanding state-law claims to Wayne County Circuit Court. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Phillip Wendell Hogan,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-10923

Visio Financial Services, Inc.,

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE-LAW CLAIMS
AND REMANDING THOSE CLAIMS
On or about March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action in Wayne County Circuit Court,
asserting claims relating to a residential mortgage.
On March 12, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this Court based upon federal
question jurisdiction.
This Court has federal question jurisdiction over that portion of Count I that asserts a
claim based upon the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). All of the remaining
claims asserted in the complaint, however, are state-law claims.
Defendant asks this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims
in Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Notice of Removal at ¶ 10).
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 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 reasons 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 ORDERED that this Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts II, III, and any
portions of Count I that are based upon state law) and those claims are hereby REMANDED to
the Wayne County Circuit Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: March 18, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
March 18, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager