Borison v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al, No. 1:2016cv01130 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendants removed the above-captioned matter to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the complaint contained a claim for violation of "due process." Be cause jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to remand. Plaintiff has since amended his complaint. Upon review, the Court notes that the complaint does not raise any federal question. Plaintiff clarif ied in the amended complaint that his due process claim is asserted under O.R.C. §3701.351. The remaining claims are all asserted under Ohio common law. Because there are no federal questions or claims remaining in this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. Accordingly, the matter is sua sponte remanded to state court. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 6/6/16. (LC,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Borison v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Daniel I. Borison, Plaintiff, Vs. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 1130 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order Defendants removed the above-captioned matter to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the complaint contained a claim for violation of “due process.” Because jurisdiction existed at the time of removal, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand. Plaintiff has since amended his complaint. Upon review, the Court notes that the complaint does not raise any federal question. Plaintiff clarified in the amended complaint that his due process claim is asserted under O.R.C. §3701.351. The remaining claims are all asserted under Ohio common law. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Because there are no federal questions or claims remaining in this case,1 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Accordingly, the matter is sua sponte remanded to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 6/6/16 1 Diversity jurisdiction also does not exist over this case. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
