United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A.'s (“Chase”) Motion to Ascertain Status
of Motion to Dismiss and For Entry of Final Judgment (Doc.
No. 45), and Defendant Makonnen Lema's
(“Lema”) Motion to Remand the remaining claims to
state court. (Doc. No. 47).
case involves four parties asserting numerous claims,
cross-claims, and counterclaims. Plaintiff originally filed
the action concerning real property located at 5524 Oak Chase
Drive, Antioch, Tennessee, in Davidson County Chancery Court
on August 15, 2017. (Doc. No. 1-1). Plaintiff asserted claims
of wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act. (Id.). Defendant JP Morgan
Chase Bank removed the action to this Court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(Doc. No. 1), and filed a motion to dismiss on November 7,
2017. (Doc. No. 17).
December 22, 2017, the Court entered an Order dismissing with
prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Chase and
Wilson & Associates, PLLC (“W&A”), and
Lema's cross-claim against W&A. (Doc. No. 27). On
January 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the
Order dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Chase. (Doc.
No. 30). The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to set aside
on April 2, 2018, also noting that Plaintiff's claims
against W&A were dismissed. (Doc. No. 43).
April 12, 2018, Lema dismissed his cross-claim against Chase,
(Doc. No. 46), and filed a motion to remand the remainder of
the case to the Chancery Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee. (Doc. No. 47). Plaintiff did not file a response
to the motion to remand.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Motion to Ascertain Status and For Entry of Final
review of the record, the only claims that remain in this
action are: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Lema for
“injunctive relief and vesting the real
property”; and (2) Lema's counterclaim against
Plaintiff for unlawful detainer. All claims against Chase and
W&A have been dismissed. Accordingly, Chase and W&A
are DISMISSED as defendants, with prejudice,
and this Order shall constitute a final judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 with respect to Chase and W&A.
Chase's motion to ascertain status and for entry of a
final judgment is DENIED as moot.
Motion to Remand
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court 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).
claims against Chase and W&A over which the Court had
federal question jurisdiction have been dismissed, and the
only claims that remain in this action are: (1)
Plaintiff's claims against Lema for “injunctive
relief and vesting the real property”; and (2)
Lema's counter-claim against Plaintiff for unlawful
detainer. Thus, according to the statute, this Court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Court has exercised supplemental jurisdiction, it need not
dismiss the state law claims solely because the federal claim
failed. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949,
952-53 (6th Cir. 2010). Instead, the Court should consider
and weigh several factors including “judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id. at 591
(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.
343, 350 (1988). “As a rule of thumb ... [w]hen all
federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of
considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law
claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was
removed.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp.
Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996).
the state and federal interests are best served by declining
to exercise jurisdiction over the parties' remaining
state law claims. This case is not so far advanced that
litigation in state court would result in a duplication or
waste of judicial resources. In fact, the Court has not
expended any time considering the state law issues presented
by Plaintiff and Counter-Plaintiff Lema. Further, because the
remaining state law claims require interpretation of
Tennessee law, such questions are more properly addressed by
Tennessee courts. See e.g., Eatherton v. New York Life
Ins. Co., 2003 WL 21478979, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 17,
2003). And finally, because Plaintiff originally filed this