Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Madey v. UPMC Health System

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 6, 2006

JENNIFER MADEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UPMC HEALTH SYSTEM AND DAVID BLUMBERG, M.D., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McVerry

Magistrate Judge Caiazza

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The Defendant UPMC Health System ("UPMC") has filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) arguing, among other things, that the Plaintiff cannot state viable claims under HIPAA and ERISA. See Defs.' Br. (Doc. 26) at 7-8 (HIPAA does not support private cause of action); id. at 8-12 (ERISA fiduciary liability does not extend to claims for monetary damages). In response, the Plaintiff has filed a Stipulation under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), agreeing to a dismissal "for the purpose of transferring [her] state [law] claims to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County." See Doc. 29.

The Defendant has identified legal precedent demonstrating that a dismissal of the federal claims is warranted. The Plaintiff's Stipulation must be read as either a concession that dismissal is appropriate, or a desire to abandon the federal claims. See id. (seeking to pursue "state [law] claims" in Court of Common Pleas).

For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ( Doc. 25 ) is GRANTED with respect to the federal claims, and those claims hereby are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE .*fn1 As to the state law claims against UPMC and Dr. Blumberg, the court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See Bright v. Westmoreland County, 380 F.3d 729, 751 (3d Cir. 2004) ("absent extraordinary circumstances, where the federal causes of action are dismissed the district court should . . . refrain from exercising [supplemental] jurisdiction") (citations and internal quotations omitted).

In light of the dismissal of the claims over which this court has federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Plaintiff may proceed to litigate her remaining claims in state court.*fn2

The clerk is directed to mark this case closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 6th day of December, 2006.

Terrence F. McVerry


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.