Doe v. University of Michigan, 20-10631. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20200319989
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2020
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS NANCY G. EDMUNDS , District Judge . Plaintiff John Doe MC-15's complaint against Defendants, The University of Michigan and The Regents of the University of Michigan, brings eighteen various federal and state law claims. More specifically, Counts I-IV allege violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and 42 U.S.C. 1983, while Counts V-XVIII allege violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Con
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS NANCY G. EDMUNDS , District Judge . Plaintiff John Doe MC-15's complaint against Defendants, The University of Michigan and The Regents of the University of Michigan, brings eighteen various federal and state law claims. More specifically, Counts I-IV allege violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and 42 U.S.C. 1983, while Counts V-XVIII allege violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Cons..
More
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.
Plaintiff John Doe MC-15's complaint against Defendants, The University of Michigan and The Regents of the University of Michigan, brings eighteen various federal and state law claims. More specifically, Counts I-IV allege violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while Counts V-XVIII allege violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Constitution and also bring a number of common law claims.
Since the parties in this matter are nondiverse, this 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). Therefore, pursuant to § 1367(c), Plaintiff's state law claims, including all of the claims alleged in Counts V-XVIII of the complaint, are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims only.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
