The Honor able Curtis L . Colli er, U nited States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0883n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 27, 2007 No. 07-3215 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CH ER YL SEX STELL A- WRIG HT, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. SANDUSKYCITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOA RD OF ED UC AT ION , ET AL . , Defendants-A

ppellees
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

T H E N O R T HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: DAUG HTREY, COLE , Circuit Judges; and COLL IER, DistrictJudge. * P ER CURIAM . Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt, Che ry l Sexste lla -Wr ig ht, a

fo rm e r p ri nc ipa l at Mi lls El e me nta ry Sc ho ol i n Sa

nd us ky , O hio , a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o Def endants-A

ppellees, William P ahl, Superintende nt of the Sandus k y S ch ool District, J ohn Kasy zony i, Assistant S uperintende nt of the S andusky School District, and the Sandusky City School D i s t r i c tB o ar d

o f E d u c a t i o n( “ B o ar d ” ) , o nh e r

c l a i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o nu n d e r

T i t l e V II
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Sex stella-Wrig ht argues t hat, when Def endant- Appellee s decide d ag ainst rene wing her e mploy ment contra ct for the position of principal, they (1) discr iminated ag ainst her on the ba sis of her g ender and her association with a member of a prote cted c lass, namely her A frica

n-Amer ican husba

nd, andNo. 073215

Se x ste lla -W rig ht v . S an du sk yCty Sc ho ol, e t al

.

- 2 - (2) r etaliated a g ainst her f or her protec ted ac tivity

of fili ng a discrimination cha rg e with the fe dera l Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Commi ssion and the Ohio Civil Rights Commiss ion. The district court g rante d summary

judgme nt to Defe ndants-Appe llees on all cla ims. On appe al, Sexs tella-Wrig ht urg es us to revers e t h e district court’s g rant of summar y jud g me nt t o D e fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s and

re qu e sts that w e fi nd

that the dis tr ic t c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion whe n it addre ssed t he merits of her state-law claims, while disposing of her f eder al-law claims on summary

judgme nt. We reviewa district cour t’s g rant of a

motion fo r s u m mary

judgme nt under a

de novo standard. Mi lle r v. A dm in. Of fic e of t he Cou rts , 44 8 F .3 d 88 7, 89 3 (6 th Cir
. 20 06 ). A mov ingpa rt y is e nti tle d to a

g ra nt o f i ts m oti on

fo r s umm ary jud g me nt “ if the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the aff idavits, if any , show that there is no issue
a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and that the mov ing pa rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. Ci v. P . 5 6(c) ; see also Ande rson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 4 77 U. S. 2 42 , 2 47 (1 98 6) . T he burd e n is initially upon the moving pa

rty to show that there does not rema in in disput e any g enuine issue of materia l fac t. Gene ral Motors Corp. v. Lanar d Toys Inc. , 468 F.3d 405, 412 (6th Cir. 2006). Once the mov ingpa

rt y su pp or ts i ts b ur de n o f pr od

uc tio n, the op po sin g pa

rt y mus t g o b e y on d th e c on te nts of its plea dings to se t f

orth specific fac ts indicating the e x istence of a g enuine issue to be litig ated. F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( e ); see also Natl. Solid W astes Mgmt. Ass’n v. Voinovic h , 95 9 F .2 d 5 90 , 5 92 (6 th Cir. 1992). Apply ing this de novo standa rd, we believe t h at t h e district cour t, in its compre hensive opinion, has clea

rly articulated the per suasive re asoning that supports the judg ment in favor of theNo. 073215

Se x ste lla -W rig ht v . S an du sk yCty Sc ho ol, e t al

.

- 3 - Def endants-A

ppellees on Sex stella-Wrig ht’s Title VI I claim. There fore , the i ssuance of a de tailed
wr itt e n o pin ion

by us wo uld

be un du ly du pl ica tiv e . T he jud g me nt r e nd e re d b y the Ho no ra

ble Christopher A. Boy

ko with respe ct t o Sex stella-Wrig ht’s Title VI I claim i s acc ording ly aff irmed on the basis of the r easoningcontained in his opinion and orde r date d Dec ember 6, 2006. We do, however , write brie fly to addre ss the district c ourt’s treatment of Sex stella-Wrig ht’s state-law claims under Ohio Revised Code (“O RC”) §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99, providinga ca use of action and reme dies for unlawful discriminatory prac tices. S exst ella-Wrig ht asserts that the district court a bused its discretion when it re ache d the merits of her state-law claim rathe r than dismissi ng it without prejudice. She contends that, since the district c ourt dismiss ed her fede ral-la w claims by way of summary

judgme nt prior to trial, the proper course of action would have bee n to dismi ss her state -l aw c la im t oo and

pe rm it h e r t o r e -f

ile it i n s tate c ourt
. I n any civil action in which the district cour t has orig inal jurisdiction, it also poss esses “supplementa l jurisdiction over all other c laims that are so r elated to claims in the ac tion within s uch orig inal jurisdiction that they form par t of the same c ase o r controve rsy under A rticle I I Iof the Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on .” 28 U. S.C. § 1 36 7( a ). Cla ims fo rm pa rt of the same c a se or

c on tr ov e rs y when they “der ive from a common nucle us of oper ative fa cts.” Harper v. AutoAlliance I ntern., Inc. , 3 9 2 F. 3 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g A h e a rn v . C h a r t e r T o w n s h i p of B loo mf

ie ld , 100 F.3d 451, 454-55 (6th Cir. 1996)). When a district court e x erc ises supplemental j urisdiction over a party ’s s tate-la w claims, we
re v i ew such a dec ision under an a buse-of -discre tion standard. Harper , 3 9 2 F
. 3 d a t2 0 9
. A na

b u se of discre tion arises whe n we possess a “def inite and firm conviction t hat t he trial court c ommitt edNo. 073215

Se x ste lla -W rig ht v . S an du sk yCty Sc ho ol, e t al

.

- 4 - a cle ar e rror

of judg ment.” Harlamert v. W orld Finer Foods, Inc. , 489 F.3d 767, 773 (6th Cir. 2007). Pursuant to abuse-of

-discre tion review, w e will not reve rse unless we find the district court dra ws “cle arly err oneous finding s of fa ct, improperly applies t he law, or uses an e rrone ous leg al standar d.” Mo on v . H

arris on Pi pin g S up ply , 465 F.3d 719, 728 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (interna l citation omitt ed). As Sex stella-Wrig ht rig htly argues, it is or dinarily prudent for a district cour t that dismi sses
a plaintiff’s fede ral-la

w claims to de cline to re ach the plaintiff’s state- law cla ims. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c )(3) ; Moon , 4 65 F .3 d at 72 8. We h a ve , h ow e ve r, re c og nize d a g e ne ra l e xce pti on

to t his g uideline in cas es where the e x erc ise of a district c ourt’s re sidual jurisdiction fosters the ends of “judicial ec onomy

and the av o idance of multipli city of litigation” over the conce rn with fede ral courts “ne edlessly

deciding state law issues.” Id
. (q u o t i n g Aschinger v . Columbus Showcase Co. , 934 F.2d 1402, 1412 ( 6th Cir. 1991)). I n the instant case , the di strict court did not abuse its di scre tion when it rea ched the state-law claims, as Sexst ella-Wrig ht has not demonstrated a ny err oneous fa ct-finding , wrong ful selec tion of th e g o v e r n in g le g a l s ta

n d ar d , o r im

p r o p e r a p p li c a ti o n o f

Ohio law. Se e id . Prior to analy zing her state -l aw c la ims , th e dis tr ic t court a c kn ow le dg e d that it wa s “ re luc tant t o a dd re ss t his a s a pr op e rl y plead c laim.” (JA 44.) Neve rtheless, the c ourt chose to e x erc ise its supplemental jurisdiction beca use it believed that the issue “ha[d] already been de termined in State ex. re l. Edward D. Jones

v . S an du sk yCity Sc ho ols , e t al

. , No. E-05-041 2006 WL 146210 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. January 2 0, 2006).” ( Id .) Th e J

on es c a se c on c e rn e d a

wh ite ma le pr inc ipa l in

the same mun ic ipa lity

wh os e contra ct wa s al s o n ot rene wed at the same time that De fenda nts-Appellants chose not to renew Se xste lla -Wr ig ht’ s own c on tr a c t. Str ic tly a pp lying the Oh io co ur

t’ s hold ingfr om Jones , the districtNo. 073215

Se x ste lla -W rig ht v . S an du sk yCty Sc ho ol, e t al

.

- 5 - court found that Sex stella-Wrig ht’s claim nec essar ily failed be cause she had not reque sted a wr it of mandamus, which the Ohio court e x pressly charac t er i zed in J

on es as the “ appropr iate proc edura l vehicle f or a sc hool administrator to seek r eemploy ment, damag es and ba ck pay for the nonr enew al of his or her

employ ment contra ct.” (

Id .) I n d ra wi ngon the Oh io c ourt ’s ho ldi ngfr om J on es to d isp os e of

Se xste lla -Wr ig ht’ s § 3319.02 claim on proc edura l gr ounds—namely her f ailure to re quest a wri t o f m an damus, the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t un ne c e ssa ri ly op ine on a c omp le x ar e a of Oh io l aw. Ra the r, it a

pp lie d c le arl y established state la

w re g ardingproper

pleadingproce dures f

or a § 3319.02 c laim to the fac ts at hand. See Province v. Cleve land Press Pub. Co. , 787 F.2d 1047, 1055 n.11 (6th Cir. 1986) (e x plaining that the district court a cted within its discretion when it reac hed the state -law c laims beca use “it wa s not called upon to inter

pret some a

bstruse Ohio leg al doctrine ”). I f t he dis trict court ha d instead dismissed Sex stella-Wrig ht’s state-law claim, the J

on es c a se makes suff

iciently appar ent that an Ohio state court would have likewise dismissed her § 3319.02 claim for failure to reque st a writ of manda mus. Given this clear

outcome, a dismissal without preju d i ce woul d mere ly

have se rved to prolonglitigation and c onsume unnec essar y judicial
resour ce s . As such, the district cour t’s actions promoted judicial e conomy and we re f

ar f rom an abuse of disc re t i o n . Acc ording ly , we a lso AFF I RM the district court’s dismissal of Sex stellaWright’s state- law cla im.