Dobronski v. Russo ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-12288 ANTHONY J. RUSSO, et al., Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS Acting pro se, Plaintiff filed this federal action against Defendants based upon federal- question jurisdiction. Plaintiff also asks the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Thus, the Court considers whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides 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). A district court’s decision as to whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state-law claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Soliday v. Miami Cnty., Ohio, 55 F.3d 1158, 1164 (6th Cir. 1995). 1 This Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claim may raise novel or complex issues of state law. In addition, the Court finds that the potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if Plaintiff’s federal claims were presented to a jury along with Plaintiff’s state-law claim. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over any state-law claims in this action. As such, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Count VII of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Sean F. Cox Sean F. Cox United States District Judge Dated: January 16, 2024 2