Opinion
Case No. 12-12616
07-11-2012
Catherine Baetens, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, Defendant.
Honorable Sean F. Cox
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF'S STATE-LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2012, alleging the following claims against Defendant: Count I - R.E.S.P.A. - 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq; Count II - Breach of Contract for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Count III - Violation of MCL § 600.3205a; Count IV - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Count V - Request for Equitable Declaratory & Injunctive Relief; Count VI - Fraud/Misrepresentation; Count VII - Unjust Enrichment; Count VIII - Innocent/Negligent Misrepresentation; Count IX - Fraud, Based Upon Silent Fraud and Bad Faith Promises; Count X - Breach of Contract/Wrongful Foreclosure; Count XI - Violation of MCL § 445.901 et seq.; Count XII - Fair Credit Reporting Act; Count XIII - Negligence; Count XIV - Negligence Per Se; Count XV - Defamation by Libel; and Count XVI - Negligence - Malicious Statutory Libel. Although this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I and Count XII, the remaining counts are based on state law.
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;28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
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.
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 reason 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 HEREBY ORDERED that Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI of Plaintiff's complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The only claims that remain are Plaintiff's RESPA claim under Count I and Plaintiff's Fair Credit Report Acting claim under Count XII.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July 11, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Jennifer Hernandez
Case Manager