Stevens et al v. City of Blue Ash et al

Filing 94

ORDER declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sole remaining state law negligence claim against Defendant Kathleen Grant, and DISMISSING this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 2/22/2012. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE STEVENS, et al.
NO. 1:10-CV-00182
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
CITY OF BLUE ASH, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kathleen
Grant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 63) and Defendant Grant's
Motion to Strike the Addendum of the Expert Report of Gary Walls,
Ph.D., and Paragraph D of the Affidavit of Gary B. Walls (doc. 85),
together with the respective responsive memoranda (docs. 83, 86, 91
and 93).
its

For the following reasons, the Court declines to exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

the

remaining

claim

and

defendant in this case and therefore dismisses this case without
prejudice to refiling in state court.
This case arises out of a series of events that led to
Plaintiff Michelle Stevens being tazed by police officers with the
City

of

Blue

Ash

on

March

25,

2009.

On

January

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which,
pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1983,

they

set

28,

2011,

inter alia and

forth

a

federal

constitutional claim of excessive force and deliberate indifference
against the law enforcement and city defendants

(doc.

complaint also set forth a "Professional Negligence

ll

33).

The

claim against

Defendant Kathleen Grant based on allegations that, as Plaintiff
Michelle

Stevens

I

psychologist,

she

breached

a

duty

she

Plaintiff Michelle Stevens and caused Stevens harm thereby.

owed
This

is the only claim directed at Defendant Grant, and it is purely a
state law negligence claim.
On October 31, 2011, Defendants City of Blue Ash, Blue
Ash Police Department, Chief Chris Wallace, Officer Allison Norton,
and Officer Roger Pohlman were dismissed from the case by way of a
voluntary dismissal (doc. 79).1

Consequently, the sole remaining

defendant in this case is Defendant Kathleen Grant, and the sole
remaining cause of action is the state-law negligence claim against
her.
When this case included the federal constitutional claim
against the law enforcement and city defendants, the Court clearly
had original jurisdiction over the federal claims, see 28 U.S.C.
§

1331,

and

it

made

sense

for

the

Court

to

exercise

its

supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in the case
because they arguably formed part of the same controversy.
U.S.C.

§

1367(a).

See 28

However, with the dismissal of those defendants

1 Though not relevant to this Opinion, Plaintiff David
Stevens was also dismissed by voluntary dismissal on January 23,
2012 (doc. 92).
-2­

and their related federal claims,

the case currently before the

Court more properly belongs in state court.

The Court therefore

exercises its discretion and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE
to refiling in state court.

See 28 U.S.C.

§

1367(c) (3); United

Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966) ("[I]f
the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... the state claims
should be dismissed as well.

Similarly, if it appears that the

state issues substantially predominate ... the state claims may be
dismissed without prejudice .... "); Carnegie-Mellon University v.
Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
District Judge

-3­