Ayers v. City of Cleveland, et al.
Filing
157
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/11/14 granting City of Cleveland's motion to dismiss and vacating the earlier reinstatement of plaintiff's state law indemnification claim. (Related Docs. 148 , 152 , 154 , 155 , 156 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
DAVID AYERS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
:
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00753
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 148, 152, 154, 155
& 156]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Defendant the City of Cleveland moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff David Ayers’s state
law indemnification claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1/ Plaintiff Ayers opposes.2/ For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
I. Background
On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff Ayers filed a Complaint asserting various federal and state
claims against members of the Cleveland Police Department and Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing
Authority and alleging that they fabricated evidence and perjured themselves to wrongfully secure
his murder conviction.3/
On February 25, 2013, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s state law indemnification claim as
premature.4/
1/
Doc. 148; Doc. 152.
2/
Doc. 154; Doc. 155.
3/
Doc. 1.
4/
Doc. 79 at 33-34.
Case No. 1:12-CV-00753
Gwin, J.
On March 8, 2013, a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff Ayers against Defendants Cipo and
Kovach and awarded Plaintiff $13,210,000 in compensatory damages.5/ On May 9, 2013, the
judgment was enlarged to include an additional $390,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees.6/
Defendants Cipo and Kovach appealed; however, they have not sought a stay of the
judgment’s execution.7/
On May 6, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff Ayers’s motion to reinstate his state law
indemnification claim.8/
Defendant the City of Cleveland now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s indemnification claim for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.9/ Plaintiff Ayers opposes.10/ The motion is ripe.
II. Law and Analysis
Assuming the Court has the ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
indemnification claim, the Court declines to exercise this jurisdiction over a purely state law claim.
The district court’s jurisdiction over this case arose from Plaintiff Ayers’s claims against the
defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because § 1983 is a federal law, the district court had
jurisdiction over the § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which states “[t]he district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”11/
5/
Doc. 121.
6/
Doc. 134.
7/
Doc. 127.
8/
Doc. 144.
Doc. 148; Doc. 152.
9/
10/
Doc. 154; Doc. 155.
11/
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
-2-
Case No. 1:12-CV-00753
Gwin, J.
However, once final judgment was entered, those federal claims ended in this Court.
Plaintiff Ayers’s indemnification claim is a state law claim. It does not arise out of any
federal statutes and it does not relate to the violation of any federal rights. Further, the parties to this
case are not diverse. Thus, the district court does not have original jurisdiction over this claim.12/
This district court, however, could potentially exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
indemnification claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as part of the same case or controversy as the
original action. But § 1367(c) gives the district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction
over a claim where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”
and the state law claim is complex.13/ In exercising its discretion, courts consider factors such as
judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and try to avoid needless decisions of state law.14/
After considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The
state courts are best suited to decide whether a plaintiff rather than an employee can bring a direct
action for indemnification under claim Ohio Revised Code § 2744.07(A)(2)15/ and whether the City
of Cleveland’s collective bargaining agreement’s $ 1 million cap on indemnification is compatible
with Ohio law.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court further
vacates its previous order reinstating Plaintiff Ayers’s state law indemnification claim.
12/
See Pierce v. Gilchrist, 167 F. App'x 37 (10th Cir. 2006).
13/
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
14/
See City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).
15/
Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.07(A)(2).
-3-
Case No. 1:12-CV-00753
Gwin, J.
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 11, 2014
-4-
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?