Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER HARWELL G. DAVIS, III , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Children's Services, Inc. (CSI), has filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and a Renewed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 (Docs. 6 & 21). Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 23). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Plaintiff comm
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER HARWELL G. DAVIS, III , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Children's Services, Inc. (CSI), has filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and a Renewed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 (Docs. 6 & 21). Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 23). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Plaintiff comme..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DISMISSAL ORDER
HARWELL G. DAVIS, III, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Children's Services, Inc. (CSI), has filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and a Renewed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.1 (Docs. 6 & 21). Plaintiff has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 23). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on July 27, 2015, against CSI and Thomas Pardee. (Doc. 1, Complaint). She asserts a Title VII claim, based on alleged sexual harassment and retaliation, against CSI (Counts I and II). She also asserts state law claims of invasion of privacy, assault and battery, and outrage against Pardee and CSI (as Pardee's employer) (Counts III, IV and V), as well as a state law claim against CSI for negligent and/or wanton training, supervision, and/or retention (Count VI).
CSI seeks summary judgment in its favor on the Title VII claims, on the ground that it did not at any time encompassed in plaintiff's complaint employ 15 or more employees and, therefore, is not an "employer" for purposes of Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Plaintiff has responded, after discovery, that she does not oppose the summary judgment motion. Therefore, it is ORDERED that CSI's motion for summary judgment with regard to the Title VII claims asserted in Counts I and II of plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED, and Counts I and II of the complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
With regard to the remaining state law claims over which this court has supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides in relevant part:
(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a)2 if—
* * * * *
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, . . . .
(d) The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a), and for any other claim in the same action that is voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the claim under subsection (a), shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3) and (d). After consideration of the state law claims (Counts III through VI), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.3 In dismissing these claims without prejudice, the Court finds that the limitations period for the state law clams has been tolled during their pendency in this court and will remain tolled for a period of 30 days from the date of entry of this order.
DONE and ORDERED.
