From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bruce v. Washington Mutual Bank

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Feb 10, 2006
Case No. 06-10340 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06-10340.

February 10, 2006


ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL


On January 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a two-count complaint alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) (Count I) and breach of contract (Count II). Plaintiff does not allege that diversity jurisdiction exists. Although Plaintiff's RESPA claim is cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is based on state law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims raised in federal question cases. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Because Plaintiff does not assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count II of Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Bruce v. Washington Mutual Bank

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Feb 10, 2006
Case No. 06-10340 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Bruce v. Washington Mutual Bank

Case Details

Full title:RACHEL BRUCE, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 10, 2006

Citations

Case No. 06-10340 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2006)