Petrou et al v. Christopher John Robert Laycock LLC et al
ORDER Declining to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff's State Law Claims. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Myria Petrou and Bradley Foerster,
Civil Case No. 17-11508
Christopher John Robert Laycock LLC
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
OVER PLAINTIFFS’ STATE-LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff filed this action on May 11, 2017 (Doc. # 1). The complaint contains one
federal claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V) and six state-law claims. Plaintiffs ask
the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where “the
claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has
original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Here, the Court concludes that the state-law
claims, which outnumber the federal claim six-to-one, predominate. The Court also finds that
there is a substantial potential for jury confusion if Plaintiffs’ federal claim was presented to a
jury alongside Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The potential for jury confusion is yet another reasons
for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,
383 U.S. 715, 727 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. The Court shall retain
jurisdiction over the federal claim raised in Count V. All of the other claims in the complaint are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: March 8, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
March 8, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?