Dunham v. Village of Winchester et al, No. 1:2010cv00762 - Document 25 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 23 Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's FLSA claim. Having found that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff's lone federal claim, the Court declines to acceptsupplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice. This matter is therefore closed on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/9/2012. (km1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION MARK J. DUNHAM, : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF WINCHESTER, et al. Defendants. NO. 1:10-CV-00762 OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 23) and Plaintiff s response thereto (doc. 24). In brief, Plaintiff s complaint included allegations that Defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ( FLSA ) and Ohio s Minimum Fair Wage Act by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime; infliction of Plaintiff s character; emotional that emotional employment; that Defendants distress that Defendants distress; that by, committed inter Defendants committed Defendants intentional alia, threatening defamed Plaintiff s negligent breached a infliction contract of with Plaintiff; and that Defendants committed the tort of false light by publishing false statements about Plaintiff (doc. 1). Defendants move the Court for summary judgment on Plaintiff s FLSA claim, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to that claim. In response, Plaintiff concedes the issue and asks the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff s FLSA claim and therefore GRANTS their motion (doc. 23). Having found that summary judgment is appropriate on Plaintiff s lone federal claim, the Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff s prejudice. state law claims and dismisses them without See 28 U.S.C. ยง1367(c); Brandenburg v. Housing Auth. of Irvine, 253 F.3d 891, 900 (6th Cir. 2001). This matter is therefore closed on the Court s docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2012 /s/ S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior Judge District
]]>
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.
