Arias v. Raimondo

Filing 56

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/15/2015 ORDERING that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Jose Arnulfo Arias,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18

ORDER

Anthony Raimondo; and DOES 1- 20,
inclusive,
Defendant.

16
17

No. 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB

On March 30, 2015, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Jose Arnulfo Arias’s (“Plaintiff”) Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF

19
No. 34) and invited him to refile an amended complaint within 14 days. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff
20

has since filed a notice that he will “stand upon the sufficiency of his First Amended Complaint.”

21
(ECF No. 55 at 1.) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his
22

FAC, thus the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. His remaining state law claims are

23
hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
24
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25
In a separate action beginning in 2006, Plaintiff sued his former employers, the Angelos,
26
for violations of wage and hour laws. (ECF No. 34 at ¶ 2.) During the course of the previous
27

litigation between Plaintiff and the Angelos, the Angelos’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo reported

28
1

1

Plaintiff to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 34 at ¶ 3.)

2

Now, in the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff is suing the Angelos’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo

3

(“Defendant”) alleging that by reporting Plaintiff to ICE, Defendant: (1) violated the Fair Labor

4

Standards Act; (2) committed intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violated

5

California’s unfair competition law. (ECF No. 34.)

6

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 10, 2010, which Defendant

7

subsequently asked the Court to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FLSA

8

claim on March 30, 2015, holding that the claim could not stand because an employee may only

9

sue employers for retaliation and Plaintiff had not yet alleged that Defendant was an employer

10

within the definition of the FLSA. (ECF 54. at 5.) The Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file

11

an amended complaint, which Plaintiff failed to do. On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a statement

12

electing to stand upon the sufficiency of his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 55.)

13

II.

ANALYSIS

14

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff has not

15

amended his FLSA claim with sufficient facts to remedy any deficiencies, thus the claim is

16

dismissed with prejudice.

17

After the dismissal of Plaintiff's FLSA claim, only his state law claims remain pending.

18

(ECF No. 34.) Therefore, the Court may sua sponte decide whether to continue exercising

19

supplemental jurisdiction. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir.

20

1997) (en banc). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise

21

supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims

22

over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” “Since state courts have the primary responsibility

23

for developing and applying state law, the [law does] not favor retaining jurisdiction in this case.”

24

Yuhre, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44948, at *22 (citing Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). Therefore, the Court

25

declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law

26

claims and they are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

2

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. Accordingly, this

3

CONCLUSION

case shall be closed.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: April 15, 2015

7
8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3