Coomer v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to dismiss [Doc. # 16 ] is granted as to Count III only. The motion is moot as to Counts I and II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this action to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis County), from which it was removed. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/17/15. (JAB) (Certified copy of this Order and docket sheet mailed to Circuit Clerk St. Louis County)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY COOMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and DANIEL HENRY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-CV-1084-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to remand. Also before
the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The issues are fully briefed.
Plaintiff initiated this action in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, asserting
claims of gender discrimination, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act
(MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010 et seq. (Count I); retaliatory discharge, in
violation of the Missouri Workers Compensation Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 287.010 et
seq. (Count II); and violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29
U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (Count III).

Defendants removed the action, invoking

federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
In response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff concedes that her FMLA claim
should be dismissed because her “claims against [d]efendants as it relates to her
medical

leave

[are]

not

[]

FMLA

issue[s]

.

.

.

.”

[Doc.

#21

at

6].

Because the parties agree that Count III fails to state an FMLA claim, dismissal of
that count is required.

The Court’s jurisdiction over this removed action is premised solely on federal
question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the only claim that is based on federal
law will be dismissed, leaving only the MHRA and workers compensation claims.
Because the plaintiff’s remaining claims involve only issues of state law, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See Wilson v. Miller, 86
F. Supp. 3d 1027, 1036 (D. Minn. 2015) (declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over remaining state law claims where the court had dismissed one
federal claim and the plaintiff had voluntarily withdrawn her only remaining federal
claim).

Therefore, the Court will not address the defendants’ motion to dismiss

Counts I and II and will remand the action to the state court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. #16] is
granted as to Count III only. The motion is moot as to Counts I and II.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remand this
action to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (St. Louis County), from
which it was removed.
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of December, 2015.

2