Gardner v. Williams et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand and immediately remanding to Pulaski County Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/3/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
JORDANA GARDNER, individually
and on behalf of herself as well as all
other similarly-situated employees
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 4:24-CV-00564-BSM

DR. ALONZO WILLIAMS, SR., et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Jordana Gardner’s motion to remand [Doc. No. 4] is granted and this case is
immediately remanded to Pulaski County Circuit Court because federal jurisdiction is
lacking. This is true because Gardner is alleging only state law violations and there is not
complete diversity.
Gardner is suing defendants under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA),
Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and Arkansas Equal Pay Act, and is alleging illegal exaction and
asking to pierce the corporate veil.. See Compl. ¶¶ 103–147, Doc. No. 2. Defendants
removed the case contending that Gardner’s AMWA claim triggers federal question
jurisdiction. Notice of Removal ¶ 10, Doc. No. 1. A federal court may treat a claim arising
under state law as a federal claim when “ a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually
disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the
federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013).
Defendants make two arguments in support of removal. First, they argue that
Gardner’s AMWA claim invokes the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because only the

FLSA empowers a plaintiff to seek conditional certification and court-authorized notice to
represent a class of similarly-situated individuals . Def. Covenant Surgical Partners, Inc.’s
Resp. Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Remand 5–8, Doc. No. 13. Second, defendants contend that federal
question jurisdiction exists because Gardner’s request for conditional certification of her
AMWA claim raises substantial, disputed federal questions. Id. at 8–11.
Defendants’ attempt to overcome remand is an uphill battle because they have the
burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, see In re Business Men’s Assur. Co.
of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (party seeking removal and opposing
remand bears this burden), and “[a]ll doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in
favor of remand to state court.” In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 620 (8th
Cir. 2010). Moreover, it appears that the AMWA does empower a plaintiff to seek
certification and court-authorized notice to represent a class of similarly-situated individuals.
See Koppers, Inc. v. Trotter, 2020 Ark. 354, at 9–10 (affirming circuit court’s class
certification in AMWA case); Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baggett, 646 S.W.3d 106, 110 (Ark.
2022) (class definition including “all similarly situated persons” is proper); Ark. R. Civ. P.
23(d)(2) (“the court may make appropriate orders . . . that notice be given in such manner as
the court may direct to some or all members of any step in the action . . . ”). Although it may
be unclear whether conditional certification is permitted for an AMWA claim, this does not
disrupt the federal-state balance and invoke federal jurisdiction. This is true because federal
courts will not be substantially impacted by how Arkansas courts handle class certifications
in AMWA claims. See Ark. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs v. Okeke, 466 S.W.3d 399, 403 (Ark.
2

2015) (FLSA certification procedures differ from AMWA certification procedures). Finally,
if it is true that Gardner is seeking exclusively federal remedies to a state law claim, then the
state court can simply decide against providing those remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2024.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3