Blackman v. Omak School District et al

Filing 103

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Plaintiff's state law claim brought under the Washington Law Against Discrimination is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without prejudice. All remaining motions, hearings and trial are VACATED as moot. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Case 2:18-cv-00338-TOR

ECF No. 103

filed 02/16/21

PageID.1595 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

CHRIS NEESE BLACKMAN,
NO. 2:18-CV-0338-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DECLINING
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
OMAK SCHOOL DISTRICT and
KENNETH ERIK SWANSON,

11
Defendants.
12
13

SUA SPONTE, THE COURT raises the issue of its continuing jurisdiction

14

over the only remaining claim in this case. The Court has reviewed the record and

15

files herein, and is fully informed.

16

BACKGROUND FACTS

17

This case concerns Plaintiff’s employment as principle of Omak Middle

18

School (“OMS”). In April 2016, Dr. Blackman was hired to serve as principal of

19

OMS, with the position to begin on July 1, 2016. At the end of the 2016-2017

20

school year, Dr. Swanson evaluated Dr. Blackman’s overall performance as

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSAL ~1

Case 2:18-cv-00338-TOR

ECF No. 103

filed 02/16/21

PageID.1596 Page 2 of 5

1

Proficient. Dr. Blackman’s contract was renewed for the 2017-2018 school year.

2

In January 2017, Dr. Blackman established care with a healthcare provider and

3

discussed the stress she was experiencing at work. Dr. Blackman was diagnosed

4

with depression and anxiety and was prescribed Fluoxetine (Prozac) to treat mental

5

health issues related to workplace stress. By October 2017, Dr. Blackman’s

6

healthcare provider increased her medication. Following a November 30, 2017

7

meeting, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave for the rest of the school year

8

and was paid in full under her contract.

9

The only claim remaining from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed June

10

18, 2019, is her disparate treatment claim under the WLAD. ECF No. 16 at 22, ¶¶

11

102 et seq. On summary judgment, Defendants contend Plaintiff was never subject

12

to an adverse employment action. ECF No. 28 at 24. However, for the purposes

13

of a WLAD claim, “[a]n adverse employment action involves a change in

14

employment conditions that is more than an inconvenience or alteration of one’s

15

job responsibilities, such as reducing an employee’s workload and pay.” Alonso v.

16

Qwest Comm’s Co., LLC, 178 Wash. App. 734, 746 (2013). Whether an action “is

17

materially adverse depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and ‘should

18

be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.’”

19

Tyner v. State, 137 Wash. App. 545, 565 (2007). Accordingly, this Court did not

20

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSAL ~2

Case 2:18-cv-00338-TOR

ECF No. 103

filed 02/16/21

PageID.1597 Page 3 of 5

1

grant Defendants summary judgment on this claim. All of Plaintiff’s other claims,

2

including every federal claim, have been dismissed. See ECF Nos. 66, 96, 101.

3

DISCUSSION

4

A. Supplemental Jurisdiction

5

A federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims

6

to the extent they are “so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original

7

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

8

§ 1367(a). “A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it

9

shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims and the state

10

and federal claims would normally be tried together.” Bahrampour v. Lampert,

11

356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Once the court acquires

12

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, § 1367(c) provides that the court

13

may decline to exercise jurisdiction if

14
15
16

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the
claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which
the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in
exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for
declining jurisdiction.

17
18

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Indeed, “[i]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims

19

are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to

20

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ.

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSAL ~3

Case 2:18-cv-00338-TOR

ECF No. 103

filed 02/16/21

PageID.1598 Page 4 of 5

1

v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988), superseded on other grounds by statute as

2

stated in Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010); see

3

also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

4

Here, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction for several

5

reasons. First, the Court has determined that Defendants were entitled to summary

6

judgment on Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court had original

7

jurisdiction, and this triggers the Court’s discretion to decline exercising

8

supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817,

9

826 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by

10

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims

11

when federal claims were dismissed).

12

Second, because this case is still waiting for the ability to conduct a jury

13

trial, the parties will not be greatly inconvenienced by the Court’s decision to

14

decline jurisdiction. If Plaintiff chooses to refile in state court, the parties’

15

completed discovery can easily be utilized in that forum. Further, the period of

16

limitation for Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims is tolled for thirty days after the

17

claims are dismissed unless Washington law provides for a longer tolling period.

18

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

19
20

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSAL ~4

Case 2:18-cv-00338-TOR

1

ECF No. 103

filed 02/16/21

PageID.1599 Page 5 of 5

Third, state court is a particularly appropriate forum in which to address

2

Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim under the Washington Law Against

3

Discrimination (“WLAD”).

4

The values of judicial economy, convenience to the parties, fairness, and

5

comity would be no more advanced by retaining the case in this Court than by the

6

parties resolving the state law claims in state court.

7

For all of these reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental

8

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

9

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10

1. Plaintiff’s state law claim brought under the Washington Law Against

11

Discrimination is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without

12

prejudice.

13

2. All remaining motions, hearings and trial are VACATED as moot.

14

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment

15
16

accordingly, provide copies to counsel, and close the file.
DATED February 16, 2021.

17
18

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

19
20

ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSAL ~5