Griffin v. Burndy, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
John R. Griffin, Jr.
v. Case No. 24-cv-00141-LM-AJ
Burndy, LLC
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff John R. Griffin, Jr. originally filed this
action in Coos County Superior Court asserting several
employment-related claims against defendant Burndy, LLC
(“Burndy”). See Doc. No. 1-1. Burndy removed the action to
this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See
Doc. No. 1. The court dismissed Mr. Griffin’s Title VII and RSA
chapter 354-A claims, leaving only Mr. Griffin’s New Hampshire
Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”) claim. See Doc. No. 60
(R&R); 70 (R&R adopted). Burndy now moves for the court to
decline supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Griffin’s WPA claim
and dismiss the matter. See Doc. No. 71. Mr. Griffin objects.
See Doc. No. 73. Burndy’s motion is before the court for a
recommended disposition. For the following reasons, the
district judge should decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction and remand the matter back to state court.
Case 1:24-cv-00141-LM-AJ Document 74 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
All federal claims have been dismissed and only a single
state law claim remains. Generally, when a plaintiff alleges
both federal and state law claims and the claims are
sufficiently closely related to form part of the same case or
controversy, federal courts may properly exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). However, when all federal claims are dismissed prior
to trial, “it is generally appropriate for a federal court to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining
state-law claims.” Dispensa v. Nat. Conf. of Catholic Bishops,
No. 19-cv-556-LM, 2020 WL 2573013, at *12 (D.N.H. May 21, 2020)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). Nothing in this case provides
good cause for deviating from that general rule. See Carlsbad
Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (“A
district court’s decision whether to exercise [supplemental]
jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had
original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”).
For that reason, this matter should not remain in this
court. Dismissal, however, is not the appropriate remedy. Mr.
Griffin originally filed this matter in state court. Burndy
removed the case here. The court sees no reason for dismissal
when the matter could proceed in state court. Any dismissal
Case 1:24-cv-00141-LM-AJ Document 74 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
would be without prejudice and would only cause delay.
Therefore, the district judge should remand this matter. See
Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence, R.I., 807 F.3d
415, 422 (1st Cir. 2015) (affirming remand on the basis of lack
of subject matter jurisdiction); Stewart v. Robinson, 115 F.
Supp. 2d 188, 201 (D.N.H. 2000) (“The court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law
claims, which are referred to state court.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
in part and deny in part Burndy’s motion to decline supplemental
jurisdiction and dismiss. See Doc. No. 71. The court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but remand, rather
than dismiss, the matter.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to
file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation within the specified time waives the right to
Case 1:24-cv-00141-LM-AJ Document 74 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
_______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 24, 2026
cc: John R. Griffin, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:24-cv-00141-LM-AJ Document 74 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4