Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHELSEY MITCHELL CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS No. 26-448

INSPIRENOLA CHARTER SCHOOLS, ET AL. SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff Chelsea Mitchell’s (“plaintiff”) motion1 to

voluntarily dismiss all of her claims against defendant Alice Harte Charter School

(“AHCS”) and voluntarily dismiss her claims alleged pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act against defendants

InspireNola Charter Schools (“InspireNola”) and ABC Insurance Company (“ABC

Insurance”).2 The Court will grant plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The above-captioned matter was originally removed to this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446. As plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed all of

her federal claims against defendants, and intends to amend her complaint to exclude

those claims,3 this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over her remaining

1 R. Doc. No. 10.

2 Plaintiff’s motion also states that she intends to voluntarily dismiss any claims

alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Equal Protection Clause

of the United States Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution; and “[a]ny other claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the

United States.” However, the only federal claims alleged in plaintiff’s complaint

before this Court are pursuant to Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

See R. Doc. No. 1-1, at 3–6.

3 See R. Doc. No. 10-1, at 1-2.

state law claims. See Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 43–44

(2025) (holding that a plaintiff’s “deletion of all federal claims” in her amended

complaint “deprived” the court of federal-question jurisdiction and eliminated its

supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state law claims). Thus, the Court must

remand plaintiff’s case to state court. See Lutostanski v. Brown, 88 F.4th 582, 587

(5th Cir. 2023) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” (emphasis in original)

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c))).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss all of her

claims against defendant AHCS is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against AHCS are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss her federal

claims against the remaining defendants, InspireNola and ABC Insurance, is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s federal claims against InspireNola and ABC Insurance,

alleged pursuant to Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.4

4 On August 3, 2026, plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court via telephone call that she

has no opposition to dismissing her federal claims with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs state law claims against

InspireNola and ABC Insurance® are REMANDED to the Civil District Court for the

Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

New Orleans, Louisiana, August 3, 2026.

ANCE M. AFRICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 The Court understands that plaintiff used “ABC Insurance Company” as a

placeholder until she identified the proper defendant. To the extent plaintiff has now

identified the proper defendant, she may attempt to substitute it for ABC Insurance

on remand before the state court.