Morris v. Saint Louis University et al

Filing 23

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Dismissing Count III of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 14], is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff re-files her FMLA claim, Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendants their attorneys fees and costs associated with the removal and subsequent remand of this matter.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. #13 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/21/17. cc St. Louis County(CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DIANNE MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY, et.al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV1752 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Dismissing Count III of Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc.
No. 14]. Defendants Oppose the Motions. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motions are granted, subject to the stated conditions. This matter will be remanded
to the Circuit Court of St. Louis City.
On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Petition in St. Louis Circuit Court alleging
disability and race discrimination in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act,
(MHRA), Chapter 213, et seq., as amended. On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff was
granted leave to amend the initial Petition to include Count III alleging a violation
of the Family Medical Leave Act, (FMLA). Defendant removed this case based on

the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claims. Plaintiff now seeks to
voluntarily dismiss the FMLA claim, thereby leaving only state law claims, i.e., the
matter will no longer contain any federal claims. As such, Plaintiff seeks remand
of the MHRA claims.
Defendants oppose remand and ask the Court to exercise its discretion to
retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Missouri State law claims.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (c)(3), the Court has discretion to “decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” related state-law claims if the Court “has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” That discretion
enables the Court to retain jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state-law claims, remand
them to state court, or dismiss them. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.
343, 357 (1988). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated
before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction
doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward
declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. at 350 n.
7; Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002, 1013 n. 5 (8th Cir. 2017); accord
Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 749 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining
that where “resolution of the remaining claims depends solely on a determination
of state law, the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction.”

-2-

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s state-law claims and the
relevant factors and finds no compelling reason to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction in this case, particularly given the trial setting in the state court. The
Court will remand the plaintiffs' state-law claims to state court, however, the Court
is mindful of Defendant’s expenditure of time and funds defending the FMLA
claim in removing the action. As such, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is subject to
the following conditions in the event she seeks to reinstitute her FMLA. Plaintiff
shall be required to reimburse Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
in the removal and subsequent remand in the event that Plaintiff ever re-files her
FMLA claim.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Dismissing Count III of Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [Doc.
No. 14], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Plaintiff re-files her
FMLA claim, Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendants their attorneys’ fees and
costs associated with the removal and subsequent remand of this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Circuit

-3-

Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.
Dated this 21st day of April, 2017.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-