Stroup v. Imagine!

Full title: THOMAS STROUP, Plaintiff, v. IMAGINE! and MARK EMERY, Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 16, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02866-RPM (D. Colo. Apr. 16, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02866-RPM

04-16-2012

THOMAS STROUP, Plaintiff, v. IMAGINE! and MARK EMERY, Defendants.

Richard P. Matsch, Senior

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST, SECOND , THIRD AND FOURTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN AMENDED COMPLAINT

On January 25, 2012, Thomas Stroup filed an amended complaint in this civil action, claiming wrongful discharge under Colorado law by his former employer, Imagine!, in the First Claim for Relief; a violation of the Americans with Disability Act against Imagine! and Mark Emery in the Second Claim for Relief; a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Imagine! in his Third Claim for Relief; a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in the Fourth Claim for Relief against Imagine! and a Colorado law claim of outrageous conduct against Imagine! in the Fifth Claim for Relief. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because of the federal law claims in the Second, Third and Fourth Claims and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for the two state law claims.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on February 17, 2012. In his responses, filed March 16, 2012, the plaintiff concedes dismissal of defendant Mark Emery on the Second Claim and of both defendants on the Third and Fourth Claims. The parties have made extensive legal argument as to the viability of the First Claim for Wrongful discharge. Upon review of these arguments, the Court finds that they raise complex issues of Colorado law and that this claim as well as the Fifth Claim under Colorado law would substantially predominate over the Second Claim for Relief as to which this Court has jurisdiction. For these reasons, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the First and Fifth Claims for Relief in the Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice; the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief are dismissed with prejudice; and the Second Claim for Relief is dismissed as to the defendant Mark Emery. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action will go forward only on the Second Claim for Relief against defendant Imagine!.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge