United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE-LAW CLAIMS AND REMANDING THOSE CLAIMS
Sean F. Cox United States District Judge.
On or about March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action in Wayne County Circuit Court, asserting claims relating to a residential mortgage.
On March 12, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction.
This Court has federal question jurisdiction over that portion of Count I that 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 Plaintiffs complaint. (See Notice of Removal at ¶ 10).
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) 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 Plaintiff’s 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 yet another reasons for this Court to 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 Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts II, III, and any portions of Count I that are based upon state law) and those ...