Opinion
Case No. 13-10113
01-22-2013
John Gilmore Sampson, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a Michigan non-profit corporation, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Sean F. Cox
ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiffs filed this action against multiple Defendants, asserting federal question jurisdiction. Although this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Counts I through VII, the remaining counts are based upon state law. Plaintiffs ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.
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 Plaintiffs' complaint, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs' 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 Plaintiffs' federal claims were presented to a jury along with Plaintiffs' state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reasons for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' 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 PLAINTIFFS' STATE-LAW CLAIMS and Counts VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII of Plaintiffs' Complaint are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 January 22, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager