Dominguez v. Enriquez, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Plaintiff's supplemental state-law claim for assault and battery is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(a). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/30/14. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LUIS ENRIQUEZ, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-654-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201–219, and state law for assault and battery. In an Order entered on
December 6, 2013, the court sua sponte raised the jurisdictional issue of whether
the state-law claim is “so related to” the FLSA claim that it “form[s] part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Order directed the parties to brief whether the court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim, and the parties have done so.
For the reasons to follow, the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear
the state-law claim under § 1367(a).
As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, § 1367 “reflects a dichotomy between
a federal court’s power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, § 1367(a), and its
discretion not to exercise such jurisdiction, § 1367(c).” Lucero v. Trosch, 121 F.3d
591, 597 (11th Cir. 1997). The court presently is concerned with whether it has the
power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law assault and battery
claim. The issue is whether the state-law claim “arise[s] out of a common nucleus
of operative fact” as the “substantial federal claim” supplying original jurisdiction.1
Id. To make this inquiry, the court must “take the nucleus of facts on which the
federal question claims are based and compare it to the nucleus of facts on which
the state law claims are based.” Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v.
City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669, 679 (11th Cir. 2012). This comparison “is ordinarily
determined on the pleadings.” Lucero, 121 F.3d at 598. Where “each claim
involves the same facts, occurrences, witnesses, and evidence,” . . . [t]his
commonality is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional minimum required by section
1367(a).” Palmer v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cnty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1566 (11th Cir.
Defendants assert that “Plaintiff has not clearly shown that the claims at
issue have a common nucleus of facts.” (Doc. # 25, ¶ 5.) They contend, however,
that the court has discretion to decide the state-law claim in the “interests of
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claim because it raises a federal
question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that satisfies the substantiality requirement. See Tamiami
Partners, Ltd. ex rel. Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla., 177 F.3d 1212,
1223 (11th Cir. 1999) (A federal claim is insubstantial only if “prior decisions inescapably
render the claims frivolous.” (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Furthermore, because there is no diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), the court can
entertain the state-law claim only if there is supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a).
judicial economy, fairness, and convenience to the parties,” and that they have no
objection to the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. (Doc. # 25, ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff contends that the FLSA claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact
with the assault and battery claim because Plaintiff was at work when her boss,
Defendant Luis Enriquez, struck her “with a closed fist to her face, ribs, and upper
torso areas.” (Doc. # 1, ¶ 37.) Plaintiff further asserts that during the altercation,
she told Mr. Enriquez that she would “not call the police” if Mr. Enriquez “pa[id]
her outstanding wages,” but he refused and responded with further threats. (Doc.
# 26, at 3.) Plaintiff argues that “[a] significant portion of the altercation included
argument about Plaintiff’s wages, which may need to be established in the settings
of both claims.” (Doc. # 26, at 3.) She also contends that “[h]earing the claims
together would promote judicial economy.” (Doc. # 26, at 3.)
After careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable law, the
court finds that the state-law assault and battery claim does not arise out of a
common nucleus of operative fact with the FLSA claim because the claims present
different factual occurrences requiring separate proof.
As alleged in the
Complaint, Plaintiff’s FLSA claims are based on allegations that Mr. Enriquez
(and the other Defendants) unlawfully treated Plaintiff as a salaried employee
exempt from FLSA’s overtime requirements and required her to work without
paying her either minimum wages or overtime for hours worked in excess of forty
hours. The FLSA claims will require evidence of Plaintiff’s status as an hourly or
exempt employee, the number of hours Plaintiff worked, and the amount of
compensation paid. To the contrary, the assault and battery claim does not require
proof of Plaintiff’s employment status or pay. Instead, it will focus on whether Mr.
Enriquez physically and intentionally touched Plaintiff “in a harmful or offensive
manner” or, at the very least, threatened to touch her “in a rude or angry manner”
so as to create in Plaintiff “a well-founded fear of an imminent battery . . . .” Wood
v. Cowart Enters., Inc., 809 So. 2d 835, 837 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). The claims
require entirely separate factual inquiries that simply are not related.
The only factual thread holding the two claims together is that the same
parties – more specifically, an employer and his employee – are involved in both
claims.2 Plaintiff focuses on the employer-employee relationship, but while that
relationship is a pivotal fact with respect to the FLSA claim, the fact that Plaintiff
was an employee of the alleged batterer is extrinsic to the assault and battery claim.
Significantly, Plaintiff has not cited any authority indicating that this thread is
strong enough to weave a sufficient factual nexus between the federal- and statelaw claims so as to give the court power to hear the assault and battery claim under
§ 1367(a). Notably, there is persuasive authority contrary to her position. See,
e.g., O’Grady v. Dough, No. 13cv1223, 2013 WL 3063336, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June
The commission of the alleged tort occurred the day before Plaintiff ended her four-year
18, 2013) (finding no common nucleus of operative fact between FLSA and statelaw sexual harassment claims because “[n]one of the events alleged in Plaintiffs’
state law claims are relevant to Plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime claim – aside from the
commonality of the parties involved, and such a relationship is too attenuated to
meet the standard for exercising supplemental jurisdiction (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Moreover, although Plaintiff argues that the altercation involved her demand
for additional wages allegedly illegally withheld, she has not alleged or argued that
the assault or battery – which occurred on the next to last day of her employment –
relates to the reason Mr. Enriquez previously had denied her the additional wages.
Additionally, proof of the assault and battery claim is not contingent upon proof of
an actual FLSA violation. The fact remains that, notwithstanding the involvement
of the same parties, the evidence necessary to prove the state-law claim and the
FLSA claim are wholly unrelated. In sum, the FLSA claim and the assault and
battery claim do not derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and, thus,
supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(a) is lacking.
As a final matter, while the court is sympathetic to the parties’ arguments
relating to judicial economy and other discretionary factors, the court’s power to
hear a claim under § 1367(a) is not a matter of discretion. Rather, the court must
have power to entertain a supplemental state-law claim before it can decide under
§ 1367(c) whether to keep that claim or decline to keep it based upon “judicial
economy, convenience, [and] fairness to the parties.”
Parker v. Scrap Metal
Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733, 745 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that these factors
“are evaluated” under § 1367(c)(4)). The court’s discretion under § 1367(c) is not
at issue. Rather, the court first must have jurisdiction under § 1367(a). It does not.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s supplemental state-law claim
for assault and battery is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(a).
DONE this 30th day of January, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?