Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedApril 7, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-10286
StatusUnknown

This text of Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA BAGOZZI,

Plaintiff, No. 23-10286

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR PSYCHIATRIC EMERGENCIES, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff Linda Bagozzi brings this lawsuit as the personal representative of the estate of Paul Bagozzi, who died in 2018. Mr. Bagozzi was confined at the Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (COPE), which is owned and operated by Hegira Health, Inc., prior to his death. Plaintiff brings constitutional and state law claims against COPE and Hegira Health as well as five of their employees at the time who allegedly assaulted Mr. Bagozzi. Plaintiff also brings state law claims for negligence against two nurses, Marjorie G. Frank, RN, and Erma J. Owens, RN, who were involved in his care. Because the parties in this matter are non-diverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Moor v. Cty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 716 (1973); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c), the state law claims in Plaintiff’s complaint, including the eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action as well as her state claims of assault and battery, are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims only. Because the only claims against Frank and Owens are state law claims, those defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this action. SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: April 7, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 7, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moor v. County of Alameda
411 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Padilla v. City of Saginaw
867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Michigan, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagozzi-v-community-outreach-for-psychiatric-emergencies-mied-2023.