United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.
Kimberly Kraemer filed a pro se complaint in state court asserting a variety of claims against multiple defendants. United Parcel Service and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1442, contending that consent of the eight remaining defendants wasn't necessary because the claims against them didn't arise under federal law or invoke supplemental jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Cosbey agreed and directed the parties to show cause why the claims against the "non-joining defendants" - William Richards PC, the Law Offices of McNeeley Stephensen, Thopy, and Harrold, Haulers Insurance Company, Indiana Farm Bureau, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, the American Kennel Club, Inc., and the Grant County Sheriff's Department - shouldn't be severed and remanded to the Grant County Circuit Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2).
Ms. Kraemer's response to that order generated a flood of filings, including the ten motions to dismiss and eleven miscellaneous motions now before the court. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motions to dismiss by defendants UPS and the EEOC, severs the claims against the non-joining defendants, and denies the remaining motions as moot.
Ms. Kraemer's complaint contains multiple "allegations" of alleged wrongdoing by the defendants, a lengthy and disjointed "explanation" of those allegations, and 150 pages of random documents, but provides little or no insight into the legal basis of the claims she asserts. Briefly summarized, Ms. Kraemer alleges that:
1. McNeeley, Stephenson, Thopy & Harrold, Brett Haacker, and Scott Richards (attorneys for Indiana Farm Bureau and Haulers Insurance Company) brought a "fraudulent insurance case" against her after an automobile accident in March 2012, "conspired... to prevent the drivers involved in the accident from testifying...", and engaged in conduct that violated the professional standards of ethical conduct and the "law" during the course of that litigation. (Allegations 1 and 9; Explanation of Allegations).
2. UPS "improperly and unlawfully" retaliated against her and terminated her employment in February 2011, after she complained about being sexually harassed, stalked, and discriminated against by a male supervisor, and "perpetrated a fraud... by placing her in an Employee Dispute Resolution Program'... in an attempt to dissuade Ms. Kraemer from filing charges against UPS." (Allegations 2-5, 8, 12, 14-18; Explanation of Allegations).
3. "One or more attorneys provided improper and unethical legal advice to [UPS], which advice resulted in retaliatory action being initiated against [Ms. Kraemer], " and violated her "Equal Employment Opportunity Rights". (Allegation 7)
4. The EEOC failed to investigate her complaint against UPS. (Allegation 10).
5. The Grant County Sheriff's Department refused to investigate her complaints of "harassment, stalking, and death treats". (Allegations 6 and 19).
6. "Through the use of legal means, United Parcel Service, Mr. Brett Haacker and his law firm [McNeeley, Stephenson, Thopy, and Harrold], ... Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance, [and] the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)... perpetrated legal harassment' and legal stalking' of [Ms.] Kraemer." (Allegation 11).
7. UPS conspired with the ASPCA, Humane Society of the United States, and "insurance companies" to pass laws that "prevent citizens from owning property including animals", to "defeat animal laws that benefit United Parcel Service", and to "harass" and "target" Ms. Kraemer and other animal rights advocates and breeders because they "attack [their] propaganda." (Allegation 13; Explanation of Allegations).
8. The AKC and "some of its members" harassed Ms. Kraemer, "attack[ed] [her] mother by trying to revoke her dog's registration status", and, in 2008, aided a third party "in stealing intellectual property" - information contained in an article published by an unidentified English scientist. (Allegation 20; Explanation of Allegations).
The employment-related claims against UPS and the EEOC were properly removed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(c)(1)(A) and 1442(a)(1). As Magistrate Judge Cosbey noted, the remaining claims don't appear to be federal claims or to form part of the same case or controversy as the claims against UPS and the EEOC. Judge Cosbey ordered the parties to show cause why the claims against the ...