Hosea Project Movers, LLC et al v. Waterfront Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 95 Report and Recommendation granting 91 Motion to Dismiss on the basis the Court lacks jurisdiction. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/31/19. (ba)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

HOSEA PROJECT MOVERS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 1:15-cv-799
Judge Michael R. Barrett
v.

WATERFRONT ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the September 24, 2018 Report and
Recommendations (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 95).

Plaintiffs Hosea

Demolition Movers, LLC and Hosea Project Movers, LLC. filed Objections to the R&R
(Doc. 97) and Defendant Waterfront Associates, Inc. filed a response to those Objections
(Doc. 98).
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received
on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
The Magistrate Judge completed a comprehensive review of the record and the
same will not be repeated here. In her R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 91) and
alternatively, granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ Objections
are confined to the Magistrate Judge’s alternative recommendation that this Court grant
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This Court previously adopted the Magistrate Judge’s July 2017 R&R which
concluded that admiralty jurisdiction existed over Plaintiff’s negligence claim; and even
though admiralty jurisdiction did not exist over Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, this
Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. (Doc. 45). The Court
also adopted the finding that this Court should grant summary judgment to Defendants
on the negligence claim. This left only a single, state-law breach of contract claim pending
before the Court. However, in her September 24, 2018 R&R, the Magistrate Judge has
concluded “that admiralty jurisdiction never existed, repudiating any basis for
supplemental jurisdiction.” (Doc. 43 at PageID 1579). Plaintiff does not object to this
conclusion.
Since “there [was never] a valid claim within the court's original jurisdiction to which
the state claims may be supplemental. … the district court has no discretion to exceed
the scope of its Article III power, and must dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.”
Kefalos v. Axelrod, No. C2-03-180, 2005 WL 2493375, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2005)
(quoting Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 106.66[1], p. 106-88 (3d Ed. 2005)); see also Fabrizi
Trucking & Paving Co. v. Portage Cty., No. 5:12CV1275, 2012 WL 6732734, at *4 (N.D.
Ohio Dec. 28, 2012) (explaining that when a court “determines that subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's federal claims does not exist the court must dismiss the
plaintiff's state law claims”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the September 24, 2018 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 95) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent
with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
91) is GRANTED on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This case
is DISMISSED without prejudice; and CLOSED on the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT