Opinion
CASE NO. 05-73916.
October 28, 2005
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIM
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 12, 2005. Plaintiffs' Complaint contains the following three counts:
Count I Delinquent Fringe Benefit Contributions;
Count II Violation of Michigan Building Contract Fund; and
Count III Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
See Complaint.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts I and III, because they arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Count II, however, is based upon state law. Although the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are "compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claim in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation of Plaintiffs' parallel state claim for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' state law claim regarding the Michigan Building Contract Fund Act (Count II) is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims (Counts I and III).
IT IS SO ORDERED.