Brockman v. Best Overnite Express, Inc. et al

Filing 2

ORDER Declining to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Supplemental State Claims; and Order re: Stay of Proceedings. Plaintiff is ordered to file proof of service. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims in state court, he is ordered to file a notice with th is Court promptly after the final disposition of those claims. If Plaintiff wishes to dismiss his state-law meal period claims with prejudice and proceed with his overtime claim in this Court, he is directed to file a notice so stating. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/13/08. (vrp)

Brockman v. Best Overnite Express, Inc. et al

Doc. 2

Case 3:08-cv-00257-LAB-JMA

Document 2

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action. No summons has been issued yet and Defendant has not yet made an appearance. The complaint identified the existence of a federal question as the sole basis for this Court's exercise of jurisdiction. The complaint identifies one federal claim, for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207. The remainder are claims under California state law: a claim for unpaid overtime, a claim for failure to provide state-mandated meal periods, a claim for failing to make meal period payments on time, and an claim under the California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 for unfair business practices. The alleged unfair business practices consist of failure to pay overtime wages and to provide required meal periods. The FLSA claim duplicates the state-law BEST OVERNITE EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 thro ugh 10, inclusive, Defendants. ORDER RE: STAY OF PROCEEDINGS JOHN BROCKMAN, an individual, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08cv0257-LAB (JMA) ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER SUPPLEMENTAL STATE CLAIMS; AND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

-1-

§ 1367(c)(2) 08cv0257
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:08-cv-00257-LAB-JMA

Document 2

Filed 02/14/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

overtime claim, and Plaintiff makes clear this is merely an alternative theory of recovering the same money he alleges is owed under his state-law claim. Althou gh Plaintiff did not identify 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, as the source of jurisdiction over the state-law claims, no other basis for federal jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint. The Court finds the four state-law claims "substantially predominate[] over the claim . . . over which the [Court] has original jurisdiction . . . ." See § 1367(c)(2). Therefore, pursuant to § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of the California state-law claims. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file proof of service. The Court STAYS ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS in this matter as of the date of service. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims in state court, he is ORDERED to file a notice with this Court promptly after the final disposition of those claims. If Plaintiff wishes to dismiss his state-law meal period claims with prejudice and proceed with his overtime claim in this Court, he is directed to file a notice so stating. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 13, 2008

HO N O R A B LE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge

-2-

§ 1367(c)(2) 08cv0257