Curtis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Quest Trust 2005-X1, Asset Backed Certificates Series 2005-X1

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

Sharon Curtis, et. al.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 20-10609

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et. al., Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER DECINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ STATE-LAW CLAIMS AND REMANDING THOSE CLAIMS TO CLARE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

In February 2020, Plaintiff filed this action in Clare County Circuit Court, asserting claims relating to a residential mortgage. On March 6, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I, which asserts a claim based upon the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). All of the remaining claims asserted in the complaint, however, are state-law claims. Defendant asks this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in Plaintiff’s complaint. The applicable statute regarding supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides, in pertinent part, that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when:

1 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Having reviewed the state-law claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims predominate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). In addition, the Court finds that the potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if Plaintiff’s federal claims were presented to a jury along with Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is another reason this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state- law claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims (Counts II, III, IV, V, and VI) and those claims are hereby REMANDED to the Clare County Circuit Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge

Dated: June 1, 2020