From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sampson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 22, 2013
Case No. 13-10113 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2013)

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;
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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


Summaries of

Sampson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jan 22, 2013
Case No. 13-10113 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2013)
Case details for

Sampson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.

Case Details

Full title:John Gilmore Sampson, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 22, 2013

Citations

Case No. 13-10113 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2013)