Helton et al v. Factor 5, Inc. et al

Filing 206

ORDER. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG on 8/26/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7

JESSE HELTON; ALISHA PICCIRILLO;

Case No: C 10-04927 SBA

8 CHAD LOWE; individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

ORDER

9

Plaintiffs,
10

vs.
11

FACTOR 5, INC.; FACTOR 5, LLC;
12 BLUHARVEST, LLC; WHITEHARVEST,

LLC; JULIAN EGGEBRECHT; HOLGER
13 SCHMIDT; THOMAS ENGEL; and DOES 1-

100,
14

Defendants.
15
16

Plaintiffs,1 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the

17

instant action against Defendants to recover unpaid wages and other benefits under state

18

and federal law.2 On February 10, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of

19

Plaintiffs and against the individual Defendants3 on Plaintiffs’ FLSA minimum wage claim.

20

Plaintiffs were each awarded $3,353.60 in damages. On April 29, 2014, the Court granted

21

Plaintiffs’ request to allow the late-filing opt-in plaintiffs to join the conditionally certified

22
23
1

24

The named Plaintiffs are Jesse Helton, Alisha Piccirillo, and Chad Lowe
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
2

The instant action was commenced in the Superior Court of California, County of
Marin. After the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding federal claims under the Fair
26 Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216, the individual Defendants removed the
action to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
25

27
3

28

The individual Defendants are Julian Eggebrecht (“Eggebrecht”), Holger Schmidt
(“Schmidt”), and Thomas Engel (“Engel”) (collectively, “individual Defendants”).

1

FLSA collective action. On July 3, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ FLSA overtime

2

claim pursuant to their request.

3

On August 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order scheduling a Case Management

4

Conference. In that Order, the Court directed the parties to indicate whether summary

5

judgment should be entered in favor of the opt-in plaintiffs on their FLSA minimum wage

6

claim given the Court’s Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on this

7

claim. The Order also directed the parties to specify the amount of damages that the opt-in

8

Plaintiffs would be entitled to if summary judgment is granted in their favor. On August

9

25, 2014, the parties filed a joint status statement. In their statement, the parties agree that

10

summary judgment in favor of the opt-in plaintiffs on their FLSA minimum wage claim is

11

appropriate. The parties also agree that the opt-in plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the

12

amount of $3,353.60, i.e., the same amount of damages awarded to the Plaintiffs on this

13

claim. In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the

14

opt-in plaintiffs on their FLSA minimum wage claim. The Court finds that summary

15

judgment is appropriate for the reasons stated in its February 10, 2014 Order. The Court

16

further finds that the opt-in plaintiffs are each entitled to an award of damages in the

17

amount of $3,353.60 for the reasons stated in its February 10, 2014 Order.

18

All of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are based upon California state law. A district

19

court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over

20

which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “ ‘[I]n the usual case in which

21

all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered

22

under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and

23

comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law

24

claims.’ ” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the

25

Court has disposed of all the federal claims alleged in this action, the Court exercises its

26

discretion and declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state

27

law claims. See City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc.-West, 614 F.3d 998, 1008

28

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise
-2-

1

supplemental jurisdiction after granting summary judgment on all federal claims); Harrell

2

v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“it is generally preferable for a

3

district court to remand remaining pendant claims to state court. . . .”). Accordingly, the

4

Court remands this action to the state court from which it was removed.

5

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

6

1.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of the opt-in plaintiffs and against

7

the individual Defendants on the opt-in plaintiffs’ FLSA minimum wage claim. The

8

following individuals are awarded $3,353.60 in damages: Alvin Leviste, Alan Purdy,

9

Terence Amato, Jason Jackson, Chris Crawford, Elie Klimos, Brandon Martynowicz,

10
11
12
13
14

Allessandro Briglia, Jim Moore, and Dennis Crowley.
2.

The Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’

remaining state law claims.
3.

The instant action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,

County of Marin.

15

4.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters.

Dated: 8/26/2014

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-