Opinion

Slight v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America

Court
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Filed
Mar 4, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.3%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Jerry Slight, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-1590

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

International Union, United Automobile,

Aerospace and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America, et al.,

Defendants.

All Defendants except for Michael Brown, Keith Mickens, and Norwood Jewell moved to

dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. I concluded that, in light of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in

Baltrusaitis v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 86 F.4th 1168 (6th

Cir. 2023), Plaintiffs’ RICO claims are barred by the four-year statute of limitations. (Doc. No. 110).

I dismissed Counts I and II as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiffs’ state-law claim in Count III.

In certain circumstances, a court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claim sua sponte, including when a

statute of limitations defect is obvious from the face of the complaint. Alston v. Tennessee Dep’t of

Corr., 28 F. App’x 475, 476 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53-54 (2d Cir. 1995)).

Because that circumstance exists in this case, I also dismiss Counts I and II, and decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Count III, as to Brown, Mickens, and Jewell

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.