Appeals court: Federal judge should decide on state law claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has sent a case back to an Indianapolis judge, saying she didn’t properly weigh whether the case should be prolonged on remand to Hamilton Superior Court instead of her deciding on the issues that have already been fleshed out in federal court during the past year and a half.

In a non-precedential order issued Aug. 12, a 7th Circuit panel sent the case Brooke N. Taflinger v. United States Swimming Inc. and Westfield Washington School Corp., No. 1:09-CV-00771, back to U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana for her to reconsider.

The case involves elite swimmer Brooke Taflinger, who competed at Indiana University and the University of Florida and qualified for the Olympic trials in both 2000 and 2004. After graduating from high school, she swam for Westfield Area Swimmers that later became Central Indiana Aquatics, a club team that coach Brian Hindson had founded in 1998. Hindson recruited Taflinger to swim for his team. His program was organized under the non-profit U.S. Swimming comprised of thousands of coaches and swimmers nationwide, and through that program Taflinger received a swimming scholarship from the University of Florida.

But unbeknownst to her, Hindson had placed a video camera in a padlocked locker to secretly tape Taflinger and other teenage girls that he coached while they were changing in locker rooms.

That didn’t come to light until 2008, when the F.B.I. received a report that a computer belonging to Hindson that sold on eBay contained pornographic images. An investigation led to the coach pleading guilty to 11 counts of child pornography production. He’s currently serving a 33-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marianna, Fla. with lifetime supervision post-release.

But after all that criminal activity transpired, Taflinger in 2009 sued in Hamilton Superior Court. She alleged that U.S Swimming and the Westfield-Washington School Corp., which allowed Hindson access to locker rooms, failed to take measures to protect swimmers from his criminal behavior. The case was removed to federal court.

In January, Judge Pratt dismissed the federal claims in the suit – ruling that the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply to individuals such as Hindson, who wasn’t acting as a school official in his coaching capacity; and that Westfield-Washington Schools can’t be held liable because Hindson’s team wasn’t a part of the school district’s educational activities and Taflinger didn’t sufficiently prove the school knew of Hindson’s activity, or couldn’t have been expected to know.

On the state law claims – general negligence, breach of contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligent supervision – Judge Pratt remanded those to Hamilton Superior Court for further consideration, since all the federal claims had been dismissed. She cited the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction in factors outlined in Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), that weighed in favor of her remanding those remaining state law claims rather than addressing them in federal court where the case had been for more than a year.

Both U.S. Swimming and the high school appealed, and the appellate court consolidated those actions into Taflinger v. U.S. Swimming, et. al., Nos. 11-1296 and 11-1412.

The federal panel pointed out that District courts must make a “considered determination” as to whether it should retain or remand state claims, something that Judge Pratt didn’t appear to do in this case. She cited the Carnegie-Mellon factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, but didn’t provide any analysis of how those factors influenced her decision.

“Although generally a district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that were not thoroughly developed in the course of resolving federal claims, we have recognized that the interest of judicial economy compels a court to retain jurisdiction over state claims when substantial resources already have been committed to deciding them, or when there is no doubt about how those claims should be decided,” the appellate panel wrote.

Nineteen months have lapsed since the case was removed to federal court, with discovery and a full record being litigated on all claims – including the state claims, the panel wrote. Judge Pratt also evaluated and dismissed two of Taflinger’s state claims against U.S. Swimming, and even Taflinger concedes that the remaining state claims that are ready to be decided would prolong the case even more if remanded.

Judge Pratt’s order remanding the state claims is vacated, and the case is remanded to the federal court for further proceedings.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.