Dunham v. Village of Winchester et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER granting 23 Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's FLSA claim. Having found that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff's lone federal claim, the Court declines to acceptsupplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice. This matter is therefore closed on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/9/2012. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK J. DUNHAM,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF WINCHESTER,
et al.
Defendants.
NO. 1:10-CV-00762
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Joint
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s
response thereto (doc. 24).
In brief, Plaintiff’s complaint included allegations
that Defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) and Ohio’s Minimum Fair Wage Act by failing to pay
Plaintiff
overtime;
infliction
of
Plaintiff’s
character;
emotional
that
emotional
employment;
that
Defendants
distress
that
Defendants
distress;
that
by,
committed
inter
Defendants
committed
Defendants
intentional
alia,
threatening
defamed
Plaintiff’s
negligent
breached
a
infliction
contract
of
with
Plaintiff; and that Defendants committed the tort of false light
by
publishing
false
statements
about
Plaintiff
(doc.
1).
Defendants move the Court for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
FLSA claim, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material
fact as to that claim.
In response, Plaintiff concedes the
issue and asks the Court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Having
reviewed
this
matter,
the
Court
finds
that
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FLSA
claim and therefore GRANTS their motion (doc. 23).
Having found
that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff’s lone federal
claim, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction of
Plaintiff’s
prejudice.
state
law
claims
and
dismisses
them
without
See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c); Brandenburg v. Housing Auth.
of Irvine, 253 F.3d 891, 900 (6th Cir. 2001).
This matter is
therefore closed on the Court’s docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 9, 2012
/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United
States
Senior
Judge
District
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?