UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSLAN BLAJEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-cv-13595

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 8) AND DENYING 

AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (docket no. 10)

This is an employment matter that began in Wayne County Circuit Court and was later

removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. The

complaint alleges that defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., as well as Michigan’s Persons With

Disabilities Civil Rights Act ("PWDCRA"), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1101, et seq. Discovery

is over and Ford has moved for summary judgment on all claims. A hearing is not

necessary and the Court will decide the motion on the papers. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

Plaintiff concedes that his ADA claim lacks merit because he failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies before filing suit. Pl. Resp. Br. at 4; see also Blajei dep. 101. A

plaintiff bringing an ADA claim must first file an administrative charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission or the Michigan Department of Civil Rights regarding

the alleged violation. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), (e) and (f). Ford

is entitled to summary judgment on the ADA claim. 
 1

 Plaintiff also asserted a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Michigan's public

policy (count 3), but later stipulated to its dismissal with prejudice. See docket no. 11.

2

Plaintiff’s remaining claims1 alleging violations of the PWDCRA (counts 1 and 2) will

be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ford claims this

Court has jurisdiction over the claims by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §

1367. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) 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).

As the Sixth Circuit has noted repeatedly, a federal court should typically decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims after dismissing all

federal claims. See, e.g., Brown v. Cassens Transport Co., 546 F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir.

2008); Experimental Holdings, Inc. v. Farris, 503 F.3d 514, 521 (6th Cir. 2007); Moon v.

Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006). "Residual jurisdiction should

be exercised only in cases where the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of

multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern over needlessly deciding state law issues."

Moon, 465 F.3d at 728 (quoting Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182

(6th Cir. 1993)). In ordinary cases the exercise of residual jurisdiction is improper. Id.

Principles of comity between state and federal jurisdictions are implicated when a federal
3

court needlessly decides state law questions after all federal issues have been dismissed.

Farris, 503 F.3d at 521.

The Court concludes that the interests of judicial economy and federal-state comity

outweigh the concern over needlessly deciding Plaintiff's state law claims. The Court finds

this case to be an ordinary one in which the Court should abstain from adjudicating the

state law claims. See, e.g., Claspell v. Denso Mfg. Mich., Inc., No. 5:97-CV-69, 1998 WL

480875, at *9 (W.D. Mich. June 26, 1998) (granting summary judgment on ADA claim and

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim, stating “Although

discovery has been completed and the case has progressed substantially, the Court finds

no compelling reason to deviate from the general rule by retaining jurisdiction over

[Plaintiff's] state law claims."); Hendrixson v. BASF Const. Chems., LLC, No. 1:07-cv-512,

2008 WL 3915156, at *19-20 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2008) (granting summary judgment on

ADA claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over PWDCRA claim); see

also Allen v. City of Sturgis, 559 F. Supp. 2d 837, 852 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (granting

summary judgment on FMLA claims and declining to exercise jurisdiction over PWDCRA

claim); Amidon v. Michigan, No. 04-75003, 2008 WL 723536, at *18, n.14 (E.D. Mich. Mar.

17, 2008) (dismissing ADA claim on exhaustion grounds and declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over PWDCRA claim).

The Court notes that the matter should progress quickly if Plaintiff chooses to re-file

his claim in state court. Neither party moved to extend the discovery period in this case,

so it is likely that no further discovery in a subsequent state case will be necessary. Ford

may renew its motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's PWDCRA claim in state court,

and the case will be in the same procedural posture it was in here before the action was

dismissed.
4

WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment

(docket no. 8) is GRANTED in part. Defendant is entitled to judgment on Plaintiff's

Americans with Disabilities Act claim (count 4).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the action (counts 1 and 2) is

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for extension of time to file a

reply brief (docket no. 10) is DENIED as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: September 8, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on September 8, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager