United States District Court, D. Arizona
NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.
Before the court is Counter-Defendant Peter K. Strojnik's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Counterclaim (Doc. 67). For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.
On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Amy Patterson filed suit against Defendant Joseph Popo and three limited liability corporations over which he exercises partial control. (Doc. 1 at 1-3.) Those corporations do business in Scottsdale, Arizona, as Stone & Vine Urban Italian Restaurant, Salt & Lime Modern Mexican Grill, and Black & Bleu. ( Id. at 2-3.) Beginning in 2013, while Patterson was working at these restaurants as a server and manager, Popo allegedly made "consistent inappropriate and grotesque sexual advances during each shift [Patterson] worked." ( Id. at 4.) According to the Complaint, Popo repeatedly made graphic remarks to Patterson, touched her in an inappropriate manner, and "aggressively pressure[d] [Patterson] to engage in three-way intercourse with him and another employee." ( Id. at 5.) Patterson alleges the harassment became so severe and pervasive that she was eventually forced to resign. ( Id. at 6-7.) Following her resignation and prior to initiation of this litigation, Popo and the other defendants (collectively, "Defendants") allegedly authored statements on a local internet forum calling Patterson a "whore, " claiming she carried several sexually transmitted diseases, and intimating that she had welcomed Popo's sexual advances. ( Id. at 9-10.)
Patterson's Complaint sought damages for Title VII sexual harassment, as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, assault, and defamation. In response, Defendants filed a counterclaim against Patterson and a third-party complaint against her attorney, Peter K. Strojnik, and his law firm, the Strojnik Law Firm, LLC. (Doc. 8 at 1-3.) Defendants alleged that Patterson had "instigated" and reciprocated Popo's sexual "banter, " and that rather than resigning voluntarily, Patterson had been forced out after a patron published a complaint about her on Yelp. ( Id. at 4, 5.) In addition, Patterson and Strojnik allegedly "conspired with one another to extort money from Popo by threatening the disclosure of work related communications, potential criminal activity, and alleged affairs to the public at large." ( Id. at 6.) The counterclaim alleges Patterson and Strojnik demanded $500, 000 in return for an agreement not to report unspecified criminal conduct to the police; "disseminated defamatory and libelous information to the public by posting on websites such as LinkedIn, Facebook and The Dirty Scottsdale"; and "visited [Defendants'] places of business on numerous occasions to protest, disseminate pamphlets and/or otherwise bully [Defendants] into capitulating to their unlawful demands." ( Id. at 6-8.)
Patterson and Defendants filed a Notice of Settlement on June 5, 2015 (Doc. 63), and all claims between those parties were dismissed on July 23, 2015 (Doc. 79). But Defendants have not dropped their claims against Strojnik and the Strojnik Law Firm. In a Second Amended Counterclaim filed on June 10, 2015, Defendants seek damages from Strojnik and the Strojnik Law Firm on seven causes of action, including business disparagement, wrongful interference with business relationships, libel per se, trade libel, invasion of privacy, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 65 at 13-27.) All of these claims arise under Arizona law. Strojnik now moves to dismiss the Second Amended Counterclaim 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and 2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as provided by Rule 12(b)(6).
Patterson's Complaint asserted both a Title VII claim and various state law causes of action. This court therefore originally had jurisdiction over the entire case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which establishes federal question jurisdiction, and § 1367(a), which provides that "in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." But the existence of supplemental jurisdiction at the inception of a case does not necessarily require a federal court to continue exercising jurisdiction over pendent state law claims once all federal questions have been resolved:
The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if-
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for ...