UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SARAH WILSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ERIC GREGORY, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-554

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This case is before the Court pursuant to an Order of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Wilson v. Gregory, No. 20-4161, 2021 WL 2708863 

(July 1, 2021). (Doc. 78). The Order of the Court of Appeals directs this Court, inter 

alia, “to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the state law 

claims that remain. Wilson, No. 20-4161, 2021 WL 2708863, at *13 (6th Cir. 2021). For 

the reasons stated below, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and 

dismisses all remaining claims without prejudice. 

In August 2017, Plaintiff Sarah Wilson filed this case as administrator for the 

estate of Jack Huelsman. The complaint alleges two federal causes of action: a 

deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a failure to accommodate under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. (“ADA”). (Doc. 1). The complaint states three 

additional grounds for relief based on state law: wrongful death, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Id.).

Case: 1:17-cv-00554-TSB Doc #: 80 Filed: 08/18/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 4345
2

This Court’s initial jurisdiction over the state law claims, as set forth by Plaintiff, 

“is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).” (Doc. 1 at ¶2). That statute allows the Court to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “so related to claims in the action 

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. The complaint does not assert diversity jurisdiction. And, because all 

parties reside in Ohio, it does not appear diversity of citizenship exists. 

After discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 60). On that 

motion, the Court dismissed all claims against Defendants. (Doc. 73). Plaintiff appealed. 

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the federal claims but vacated the 

Court’s dismissal of the state law claims. Wilson, No. 20-4161, 2021 WL 2708863, at 

*12. Accordingly, on remand to this Court, the only remaining causes of action are state 

law claims. 

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction.” See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 637 (2009). By 

long-established principle, the district court ought to evaluate “the values of judicial 

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise 

jurisdiction over a case brought in that court.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 

343, 350 (1988). However, the Court of Appeals is clear that when “all federal claims are 

dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the 

state law claims.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 

(6th Cir.1996); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Case: 1:17-cv-00554-TSB Doc #: 80 Filed: 08/18/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 4346
3

On the issue of judicial economy and convenience—which the Court will evaluate 

as a single consideration—there are indeed factors that cut in favor of exercising 

supplemental jurisdiction. The Court recognizes the parties have invested resources in 

litigating in this forum. For example, the parties conducted several depositions.

Additionally, having to re-file this case would occasion some filing costs and potential 

delay. On the other hand, the parties should be able to use the depositions already 

conducted in a newly commenced state court case. See Ohio Civ. R. 32 (“When another 

action involving the same subject matter is or has been brought between the same parties 

or their representatives or successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken in the one 

action may be used in the other as if originally taken therefor.”). This mitigates the 

potential inconvenience to the parties. 

It is also important to consider, against the possibility of inconvenience of a 

dismissal, the Sixth Circuit’s clear preference for dismissing or remanding residual state 

law claims when the federal claims are dismissed “before trial.” Musson, 89 F.3d at 1254 

(6th Cir. 1996). This preference applies to cases at the summary judgment stage. See e.g., 

Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). It also 

applies where, as here, the district court has earlier tried to resolve the state law claims on 

the merits of a motion for summary judgment. See Booker v. City of Beachwood, 451 F. 

App'x 521, 523 (6th Cir. 2011). 

Ultimately, the parties’ expenditure of resources in this forum and the potential 

filing costs in state court are apt considerations. But they are not so weighty as to displace 

the Sixth Circuit’s clear preference that federal district courts dismiss state law claims 

Case: 1:17-cv-00554-TSB Doc #: 80 Filed: 08/18/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 4347
4

where the federal claims are resolved before trial. Musson, 89 F.3d at 1254 (6th Cir. 

1996).

On the issue of fairness, the Court finds few implications that would result from

dismissal. The statute that confers supplemental jurisdiction tolls Plaintiffs state law 

claims during the pendency of this case, so Plaintiffs may timely file in state court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(d).1

 Yes, re-commencing the case will incur filing costs, but those costs 

do not constitute an unfair imposition on Plaintiff relative to the relief sought in this case.

The Court concludes that leaving the state law claims for state adjudication accords with 

fairness to the parties. 

Finally, on the issue of comity, there are good reasons to give Ohio state courts

the opportunity to decide the remaining issues. The remaining claims are torts, none of 

which are “closely tied to questions of federal policy.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. 

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 727 (1966) (noting that federal pre-emption questions would 

produce a stronger justification for supplemental jurisdiction). The parties' arguments on 

the remaining issues “will depend heavily on the interpretation and application of state 

law authority.” Salem v. City of Akron, 448 F. Supp. 3d 793, 812 (N.D. Ohio 2020). 

Particularly, a core defense to the remaining claims involves state-conferred immunity for

law enforcement officers. (Answer, Doc. 2, Second Affirmative Defense). As the Court 

of Appeals’ decision makes clear, Ohio-based statutory immunity is an evolving topic of 

1 Courts are split on how § 1367(d) works—specifically, whether it annuls, suspends or extends 

the existing clock on the relevant statute of limitations. See Smith v. Erie Cty. Sheriff's Dep't,

2016-Ohio-543, ¶¶ 18-19, 59 N.E.3d 725, 729 (6th Dist. 2016) (discussing the various 

approaches). 

Case: 1:17-cv-00554-TSB Doc #: 80 Filed: 08/18/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 4348
5

law that diverges from the legal standards that apply to federal-based immunity.

2 For 

these reasons, the resolution of the remaining state law claims is best left to Ohio courts.

Because this case was originally filed in federal court, a direct remand to state 

court is not an option. See Cohill, 484 U.S. at 351 (1988). Accordingly, the Court 

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction by dismissing this case without prejudice. 

28 U.S.C. §1367(c). 

Based on the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket 

of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 18, 2021 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

2 The Sixth Circuit states: “Whether this record shows that Deputies Gregory and Walsh's actions 

constituted a violation of particular federal constitutional rights under § 1983 is a substantially 

different question than whether they (and particularly Deputy Gregory) acted with malicious 

purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner as Ohio law uses those terms.” Wilson v. 

Gregory, No. 20-4161, 2021 WL 2708863, at *11 (6th Cir. July 1, 2021).

Case: 1:17-cv-00554-TSB Doc #: 80 Filed: 08/18/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 4349