Esordi v. Macomb Township

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 23, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-10570
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Thomas D. Esordi,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 21-10570

Macomb Township, et al., Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER ANY STATE-LAW CLAIMS IN THIS ACTION

Defendants removed this action from Macomb County Circuit Court, based upon federal- question jurisdiction. Defendants ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over several state-law claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Second Complaint: (1) Count I – Violation of the Michigan Whistleblower’s Protection Act; (2) Count II – Violation of Michigan Public Policy; (3) Count III – Breach of Contract; and (4) Count IV – Retaliation in Violation of Michigan’s Whistleblower’s Protection Act/Public Policy. This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case stems from Plaintiff’s federal claim: Count V – Denial of Due Process in Violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, but supplemental jurisdiction is a “‘doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.’” City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (quoting United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). “[D]istrict courts can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chicago, supra. District courts should deal with cases involving supplemental jurisdiction in a manner that serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Id. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, codifies these principles and provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when: (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). A district court’s decision as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Soliday v. Miami Cnty., Ohio, 55 F.3d 1158, 1164 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims would predominate over the federal claim asserted in this action. The state-law claims could also raise novel and complex issues of state law.

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over any state-law claims in this action. As such, the Court REMANDS Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint to Macomb County Circuit Court. The only claim that remains in this Court is Count Five. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge

Dated: March 23, 2021