Page 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHANTEL CLEMONS 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 04:09-CV-13480 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO 

STATE COURT, GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Before the Court are three motions: 

 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Chantel Clemons 

(Docket Entry 22); 

 Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant City of Detroit (the “City”) (Docket 

Entry 23); 

 “Motion to Remand Back to State Court and to Dismiss all Title VII Claims by 

Plaintiff” (Docket Entry 31). 

The background facts and procedural history relative to these motions are summarized as 

follows. 

In July 2009, Plaintiff sued the City asserting employment claims under Michigan and 

federal law. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged race and sex discrimination under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights 

Act (Mich. Comp. Law. § 37.2101 et seq.) and a common law claim for violation of public 

policy. 

Originally filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, the action was removed by the City to 

this Court in September 2009. In November 2010, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to File an 

4:09-cv-13480-MAG-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/23/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1043
Page 2 

Amended Complaint, seeking to withdraw her claims of race discrimination and to assert new 

state law claims that the City’s termination of Plaintiff allegedly violated laws, rules, or 

regulations prohibiting termination of employees except for cause. Plaintiff did not seek to 

disturb her pending public policy claim or her sex discrimination claims under state and federal 

law. Shortly thereafter, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. In December 2010, 

following a conference with the Court, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Remand Back to State Court 

and to Dismiss all Title VII Claims,” seeking to dismiss her sex discrimination claim based on 

her failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to remand the remaining state law claims to 

state court. The City opposes remand on the grounds that it has invested substantial time in 

litigating this case in this Court, and that it has a pending motion for summary judgment as to all 

of Plaintiff’s claims. 

The federal claims that Plaintiff seeks to dismiss in her “Motion to Remand Back to State 

Court and to Dismiss all Title VII Claims” are sex discrimination claims, as to which Plaintiff 

acknowledges she has not exhausted her administrative remedies. Given that Plaintiff 

acknowledges the defect in those claims, the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice to 

refiling the claims in state court. 

Because Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint seeks, among other 

things, dismissal of the race discrimination claims, that motion will be granted with respect to 

that request only. Given that the Plaintiff’s own motion suggests that there is no basis for the 

race discrimination claims, the dismissal of those claims, both under state and federal law, will 

be with prejudice. Since that motion also seeks to add certain state law claims, the balance of that 

motion is denied without prejudice to refiling the claims in state court. 

Generally, once all federal claims are dismissed, a federal court should “declin[e] to 

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Taylor v. First of America Bank4:09-cv-13480-MAG-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/23/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1044
Page 3 

Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 

343, 350 (1988)). While declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims is not 

mandatory, it is within a court’s discretion to decide whether to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Taylor, 973 F.2d at 1287. In 

making that determination, a trial court must balance the interests of “judicial economy and 

fairness.” Id. 

The City cites Taylor and other cases in support of its argument that where a court has 

invested substantial resources to a case, it is in the interest of judicial economy and fairness to 

maintain adjudication of the state law claims in federal court. However, this case was only 

recently reassigned to the undersigned district judge on September 14, 2010. Since that time, the 

undersigned judge has reviewed the pending summary judgment motion sufficiently to 

understand the issues it raises, but he has not invested the significant time necessary to decide the 

motion and issue an opinion. As a consequence, there would be no waste of judicial resources in 

remanding this case to the state court where it originated. Nor would remand create any 

unfairness for the City. While the City would understandably prefer to have its summary 

judgment motion decided sooner rather than later, it has failed to identify any specific prejudice 

it would suffer as a result of any delay caused by remand. Finally, while the City alleges that 

Plaintiff has engaged in a manipulative tactic by seeking a return to state court, it has failed to 

substantiate that charge. Therefore, in this case, it is in the interest of judicial economy and 

fairness for the Court to dismiss the federal claims and remand the remaining state law claims to 

state court. 

Given that the Court has dismissed or remanded all claims, Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment is now moot. Therefore, the Court will deny that motion without prejudice. 

For the reasons stated, it is ordered as follows:

4:09-cv-13480-MAG-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/23/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1045
Page 4 

1. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand Back to State Court and to Dismiss all Title VII Claims” 

(Docket Entry 31) is granted. Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims under federal law are 

dismissed without prejudice, and this action is remanded to the Wayne County Circuit 

Court. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 22) is granted 

in part. Her race discrimination claims under state and federal law are dismissed with 

prejudice; the balance of the motion is denied without prejudice. 

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 22) is denied without 

prejudice. 

 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 23, 2011 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 23, 2011. 

 s/Deborah J. Goltz 

 DEBORAH J. GOLTZ 

 Case Manager 

4:09-cv-13480-MAG-MKM Doc # 34 Filed 03/23/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1046