Harris v. Greenville Riverboat, LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by David A. Sanders on 4/18/11. (DAS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
NIYA HARRIS
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10CV80–DAS

GREENVILLE RIVERBOAT, LLC, TROPICANA
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, and CALVIN BROWN
ORDER
This matter is before the court on motion of the defendants to dismiss Calvin Brown and
all claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (# 48). In accordance with the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all
proceedings in this case, including an order for entry of final judgment on any or all of the
plaintiff’s claims. After considering the motion and the response thereto, the court finds as
follows:
The plaintiff filed the present action, alleging violations of Title VII against Calvin
Brown individually. The plaintiff also alleged violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments against the defendants, none of which are state actors. In response to the motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff confesses these claims.
The only issue remaining is whether the court will retain jurisdiction over Brown for the
remaining state law claims. The court looks to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides:
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided
otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district
courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United
1

States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include
claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Because the Title VII claims against the corporate defendants still exist, the court finds
that fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity weigh heavily towards retaining
jurisdiction. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Accordingly,
the court will retain jurisdiction of the plaintiff’s state law claims against Calvin Brown.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss Calvin Brown
and all claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (# 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Title VII claims against Calvin
Brown is granted. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims against
Calvin Brown is denied. The defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments is granted.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of April, 2011.

/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2