Arora et al v. James et al

Filing 186

ORDER setting a dispositive motion briefing schedule as follows: (1) dispositive motions must be filed by May 2, 2018; (2) response briefs must be filed by May 21, 2018; and (3) reply briefs must be filed by May 31, 2018. (Mo tions due by 5/2/2018, Response to Motion due by 5/21/2018, Reply to Response to Motion due by 5/31/2018). Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45.) Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/12/2018. (asni, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Naresh C. Arora and Sudha Arora,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Captain James; Regional Medical Center of
Orangeburg; Denmark Technical College,
an agency of State of South Carolina, a
governmental entity; Chief Wilbur Wallace;
Donald Williams; Joann Boyd-Scotland;
Ambrish Lavania, individually (at their
personal capacity) and as agents and
employees for Denmark Technical College;
Does 1-100,
Defendants.
___________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 5:14-cv-00018-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court to address the posture of the case upon its receipt of the
parties’ responses to the court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 164) entered on September 6,
2017. In that Order, the court required the parties to show cause as to “why the court should not
exercise its discretionary authority under § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss without prejudice the remaining
claim in this matter” alleging negligence under South Carolina law. (ECF No. 164 at 9.)
Pro se Plaintiffs Naresh C. Arora and Sudha Arora (together “Plaintiffs”) did not submit
any documents in response to the Order to Show Cause. In its Memorandum Concerning
Supplemental Jurisdiction (ECF No. 167) filed in response to the Order to Show Cause,
Defendant The Regional Medical Center of Orangeburg and Calhoun Counties (“TRMC”)
asserts that the court should retain jurisdiction over the matter because (1) “judicial economy,
convenience, and fairness to the parties supports exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in this
case” and (2) “[d]iversity of citizenship, whether pleaded or not, appears to exist in this case.”

(Id. at 3, 6.) In support of its assertion of jurisdiction, TRMC argues the relevance of the
following:
The plaintiffs chose their forum and filed this action in federal court on January 2,
2014. For nearly four years, the defendants have invested resources litigating this
action in this Court and the Court of Appeals. The Court may take judicial notice
that the latest Order is filing number 164 in this case. Having been filed in the
federal court, if this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the case
will not be remanded to the state court, but will be dismissed, requiring plaintiffs
to file the negligence claim as a new case in state court, where it cannot be tried
for at least a year. The plaintiffs will once again pay a filing fee and be required
to coordinate service of the defendant. The defendant will once again be called
upon to answer the allegations. The parties will once again be subject to a
mediation requirement, which was waived by this Court (ECF [No.] 107), on
motion (ECF [No.] 96) by the defendants based on the behavior of the plaintiffs.
Conversely, continuing in federal court would likely reduce expense and
inconvenience to both parties.
This is a federal case in which, seven months in, the plaintiffs requested to add
state law claims. After protracted litigation over nearly four years, only this state
law claim remains, but it arises from the same controversy as the federal claims,
and the federal and state claims involve the same common nucleus of relevant
facts and evidence, which are fully developed. See Chicago v. Int’l Coll. Of
Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997). Declining supplemental jurisdiction would
be especially prejudicial to TRMC, which has already defended the same factual
allegations of the negligence claim under different legal theories in the federal
causes of action.
(ECF No. 167 at 4–5.) Additionally, in its brief, TRMC urges the court to permit it “to file a
summary judgment motion and memorandum on the negligence claim, as the evidence and
affidavits necessary for the Court’s decision on such a motion are already of record with the
Court.” (Id. at 6.) Defendants Denmark Technical College, an agency of the State of South
Carolina, a governmental entity, Chief Wilbur Wallace, Donald Williams, Joann Boyd-Scotland
(deceased), Ambrish Lavania, individually (at their personal capacity) and as agents and
employees for Denmark Technical College, also filed a Response asserting that they did not have
a position as to the Rule to Show Cause because of the dismissal of all claims against them.
(ECF No. 166.)

2

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explains the court’s discretion in the exercise
of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims as follows:
Once the district court dismissed the federal claims against Defendants, the court
had the authority to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims that were closely
related to the original claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the district court
also had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims
outside its original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We have recognized that
“trial courts enjoy wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain
jurisdiction over state claims when all federal claims have been extinguished.”
Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). In exercising that
discretion, the district court should consider “convenience and fairness to the
parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and
considerations of judicial economy.” Semple v. City of Moundsville, 195 F.3d
708, 714 (4th Cir. 1999). In addition, the dismissal may be an abuse of discretion
where the state statute of limitations expired prior to dismissal of the anchor
federal claim. Edwards v. Okaloosa County, 5 F.3d 1431, 1433–35 (11th Cir.
1993); Joiner v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 677 F.2d 1035, 1043 (5th Cir. 1982).
Katema v. Midwest Stamping, Inc., 180 F. App’x 427, 428 (4th Cir. 2006). Upon review, the
court observes that TRMC has identified issues of convenience, fairness and judicial economy
that sufficiently support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ negligence
claim. Moreover, the court observes that because the allegations supporting the negligence claim
occurred as early as 2011 (see ECF No. 65 at 11 ¶ 67–12 ¶ 70), Plaintiffs’ attempt to re-file in
state court is most likely barred by the three year statute of limitations under S.C. Code § 15-3530 (2017). As a result, the court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law
negligence claim.1
In light of TRMC’s unopposed request for a dispositive motion briefing schedule, the
court sets the following briefing schedule: (1) dispositive motions must be filed by May 2, 2018;
(2) response briefs must be filed by May 21, 2018; and (3) reply briefs must be filed by May 31,
2018.
1

The court observes that its exercise of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is
inappropriate until it is satisfied that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 12, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

4