Abuse of Discretion

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Kathleen Hagan, et al. v. Patrick J. Quinn, et al.

Case No.: 15-1791

Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Abuse of Discretion

Plaintiffs are former arbitrators for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. In 2011, plaintiffs and another arbitrator brought a due process action challenging the implementation of House Bill 1698, a workers’ compensation reform statute that had terminated their six‐ year appointments under prior law. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and we affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clearly established right that was violated by legislation ending their six‐ year terms as arbitrators. Dibble v. Quinn, 793 F.3d 803, 814 (7th Cir. 2015) (the “Due Process Suit”).

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims, accepting as true plaintiffs’ well‐pled factual allegations and drawing reasonable inferences in their favor. E.g., Simpson v. Brown County, 860 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2017); Jakupovic v. Curran, 850 F.3d 898, 901 (7th Cir. 2017). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state‐law claims. Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015).

Plaintiffs offer no argument in their appellate brief to justify a departure from this usual course, and they certainly do not show that the district court abused its discretion. On the contrary, the court might well have abused its discretion if it had retained jurisdiction over a strictly state‐law claim in an area where important state policy goals may conflict. Whether a lawsuit like the Due Process Suit, filed by state policymakers, should qualify as protected activity under the Illinois Ethics Act, and whether these policymakers should be entitled to recover for their allegedly retaliatory discharge, are questions better left for Illinois courts to resolve. See § 1367(c)(1) (providing that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a “novel or complex issue of State law”). The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.