Caine v. Menard Inc et al, No. 2:2011cv00320 - Document 45 (N.D. Ind. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion of Cross-Defendant, Dietrich Industries, Inc. to Dismiss Cross-Claim and DISMISSES without prejudice Menards Crossclaim 19 . As there are no claims remaining in this case, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mark this case as closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 10/15/2013. (rmn)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION MENARD, INC., Cross-Claimant, v. DIETRICH INDUSTRIES, INC., Cross-Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No.: 2:11-CV-320-PRC OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Motion of Cross-Defendant, Dietrich Industries, Inc., to Dismiss Cross-Claim [DE 37], filed on July 3, 2013. Cross-claimant Menard filed a response on July 17, 2013. I. Background This case began on July 29, 2011, when James Caine filed a complaint in the Lake County, Indiana, Superior Court against Menard and Dietrich. He alleged personal injury from a package of metal studs he bought at a Menard s store in Hammond, Indiana. Menard removed the case to the Northern District of Indiana under a theory of diversity jurisdiction. On February 7, 2012, Menard filed a cross-claim against Dietrich for indemnification, defense, and breach of contract based on a Conditions of Order document. That agreement also provided that Menard was to submit to the jurisdiction of the Eau Claire County, Wisconsin, Circuit Court. Mr. Caine eventually settled and the Court dismissed his claim, leaving only the cross-claim between Menard and Dietrich. Dietrich s motion urges the Court to relinquish its pendant jurisdiction and dismiss Menard s Cross-Claim. II. Analysis This Court s jurisdiction over the cross-claim is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state-law claims. A district court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if as here it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Whitely v. Moravec, 635 F.3d 308, 311 (7th Cir. 2011). Indeed, the presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial. Al s Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). There are three exceptions: when the [refiling] of the state claims is barred by the statute of limitations; where substantial judicial resources have already been expended on the state claims; and when it is clearly apparent how the state claim is to be decided. Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981, 990 (7th Cir. 2008). Both parties agree that neither the first nor the third exceptions apply. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has counseled against remand when substantial judicial resources have already been committed, so that sending the case to another court will cause a substantial duplication of effort. 29 F.3d at 1251 (quoting Graf v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co., 790 F.2d 1341, 1347 48 (7th Cir. 1986)); see also Dargis, 526 F.3d 981, 990 91 (7th Cir. 2008). Although the Court has spent significant resources in managing this case for the last two years, it has addressed neither the merits of Mr. Caine s personal injury nor of Menard s cross-claim. The great bulk of judicial work thus remains. Dismissal is hence appropriate. III. Conclusion In light of these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion of Cross-Defendant, Dietrich 2 Industries, Inc., to Dismiss Cross-Claim [DE 37] and DISMISSES without prejudice Menard s Crossclaim [DE 19]. As there are no claims remaining in this case, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mark this case as closed. SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2013. s/ Paul R. Cherry MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: All counsel of record 3

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.