Ashley Pitzen v. Kristine McCarville and Dominic Pagliaro

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ASHLEY PITZEN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, OPINION AND ORDER v. 25-cv-253-wmc KRISTINE McCARVILLE and DOMINIC PAGLIARO, Defendants/Counter-Claimants.

Ashley Pitzen filed this lawsuit against Kristine McCarville and Grant County Deputy Sheriff Dominic Pagliaro in connection with the repossession of her vehicle. She asserts state-law claims for breach of contract and conversion against McCarville and Fourth Amendment claims against Pagliaro under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. #1.) Pagliaro also filed a cross-claim against McCarville for indemnity and contribution under state law. (Dkt. #8.) Finally, McCarville filed a state-law counterclaim against Pitzen for fraudulent interference with property rights. (Dkt. #13, at 6-7.)

Pitzen and Pagliaro have now filed a joint motion for partial dismissal of Pitzen’s claims against Deputy Pagliaro with prejudice. (Dkt. #20.) Acknowledging that the dismissal of her Fourth Amendment claims against him will divest this court of subject matter jurisdiction, Pitzen has also filed a separate motion to dismiss the remaining state- law claims against McCarville without prejudice for re-filing in state court. (Dkt. #21.)

Further, McCarville and Pagliaro jointly move to dismiss their cross-claims against each other without prejudice. (Dkt. #22.) The court will grant these motions and close this case for the reasons set forth below.

OPINION “Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Smart v. Loc. 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted and alteration adopted). Congress has authorized courts to hear: (1) cases that raise a federal question; and (2) cases in which there is diversity of citizenship among the parties. Id. For diversity jurisdiction to exist, a complaint must allege complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The joint motion to dismiss Pitzen’s Fourth Amendment claim against Deputy Pagliaro is also unopposed by McCarville, and it will be granted. (Dkt. #20.) Likewise, Pitzen does not oppose the joint motion by Pagliaro and McCarville to dismiss his cross- claim, which also will be granted. (Dkt. #22.) That leaves only Pitzen’s claims for breach of contract and conversion against McCarville and McCarville’s counter-claim for fraudulent interference with property rights against Pitzen, all sounding under state law.

Because both Pitzen and McCarville are citizens of Wisconsin, there is no basis for jurisdiction based on diversity; and with no federal question remaining, the court is without any basis to exercise jurisdiction, save supplemental, which the court is discouraged to maintain under ordinary circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Burritt v. Ditlefson, 807 F.3d 239, 252 (7th Cir. 2015) (absent good grounds, the better practice is for a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state claims once federal claims are dismissed). Regardless, having received notice that McCarville does not oppose dismissal (dkt. #25), the court will grant Pitzen’s motion to dismiss the remaining state-law claims without prejudice to re-filing in state court (dkt. #21), and will close this case.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The joint motion for partial dismissal filed by Ashley Pitzen and Dominic Pagliaro (dkt. #20) is GRANTED. The Fourth Amendment claims against Pagliaro are DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The joint motion to dismiss the cross-claim filed by Pagliaro against Kristine McCarville (dkt. #22) is GRANTED. The cross-claim by Pagliaro against McCarville is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. Pitzen’s motion to dismiss the remaining state-law claims (dkt. #21) is GRANTED. Those state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to re- filing in state court, as set forth above.

4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

Entered this 28th day of April, 2026.

BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge