HAYES v. CITY OF DETROIT, 16-13098. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20160914g75
Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 26, 2016, alleging the following counts: Count I, violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983; Count II, violation of 1983; Count III, conversion; and Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although Counts I and II are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, the remaining allegations present claims based on state law. This court declines to exercise supplementa
Summary: ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA , District Judge . Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 26, 2016, alleging the following counts: Count I, violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983; Count II, violation of 1983; Count III, conversion; and Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although Counts I and II are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, the remaining allegations present claims based on state law. This court declines to exercise supplemental..
More
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA, District Judge.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 26, 2016, alleging the following counts: Count I, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count II, violation of § 1983; Count III, conversion; and Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Although Counts I and II are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations present claims based on state law. This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994); Sanford v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 2014 WL 1922722 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ("Mixing federal-law claims with supplemental state-law claims can cause procedural and substantive problems; in the interest of judicial economy and convenience, these problems should be avoided.").
Accordingly, Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs' complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
