Opinion
No: 02-CV-70567-DT
April 5, 2002
OPINION ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND
On January 24, 2002, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against Defendants City of Detroit, Joseph Burton, and Edward Hudson. The counts are: "Assault and Battery" (Count I); "Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Individual Defendants" (Count II); and "Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Defendant City of Detroit" (Count III). All three counts stem from Plaintiffs allegation that on July 9, 2000, he was "attacked, assaulted, battered and beaten without any lawful justification or necessity" by Defendants Burton and Hudson, who are both police officers employed by the City of Detroit.
On February 12, 2002, Defendant City of Detroit removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On March 1, 2002, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, requesting that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim asserted in Count I. In support of its motion, Plaintiff asserts that "[a]lthough the federal and state claims in this action arise out of the same factual situation, litigating these claims together may not serve the judicial economy or trial convenience." (Mot. to Remand at 2). Plaintiff further asserts that "[b]ecause federal and state law each have a different focus, and because the two bodies of law have evolved at different times and in different legislative and judicial systems, in cases with pendent state claims the courts and counsel may often become unduly preoccupied with substantive and procedural problems in reconciling the two bodies of law and providing a fair and `meaningful' proceeding." ( Id.).
In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient basis for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in this case. The Court agrees.
Both parties agree that this Court has original jurisdiction over Counts Hand III, which assert claims under § 1983. There is also no dispute that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law assault and battery claim asserted in Count I. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction "over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controvers"). However, a district court may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim if: 1) the state claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; 2) the state claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; 3) the district court has dismissed all claims overwhich it has original jurisdiction; or 4) in "exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that, at this time, a sufficient basis for remanding Count I exists.
It at some later point, both of the federal claims in this action are dismissed, the Court will consider remanding the state law claim at that time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Remand is DENIED.