Prieto v. Scheeler's Cafe De Marco, Inc. et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Motion to dismiss counterclaim and defendant's counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the counterclaim parties only. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/3/2016. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GERARDO PRIETO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-139-FtM-99CM

SCHEELER’S CAFE DE MARCO,
INC., and SANDY FRANCHINO,
individually,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss

Counterclaim

(Doc.

#13)

filed

on

June

20,

2016.

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. #14) on June
28, 2016, to which Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant filed a reply.
(Doc. #18.)

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is

granted.
I.
Gerardo Prieto (Prieto), a salaried cook, filed a one-count
Complaint against his former employer, Scheeler’s Cafe de Marco,
Inc. (Scheeler’s) and Sandy Franchino (collectively “defendants”),
claiming that he was denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

(Doc. #1.)

Defendants filed an

Answer and Scheeler’s asserted a counterclaim for breach of oral

contract.

(Doc. #12.)

The counterclaim alleges that Prieto

failed to repay certain loans to Scheeler’s.

(Id. at pp. 5-6.)

II.
Scheeler’s counterclaim arises under state law, and the Court
has

no

independent

federal

jurisdiction

to

hear

the

claim.

However, the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
compulsory counterclaims that are “related to claims in the action
within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy ....”
Civ. P. 13(a).

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also Fed. R.

Permissive counterclaims under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 13(b) require an independent basis for federal
jurisdiction.

East-Bibb Twiggs Neighborhood Ass’n v. Macon Bibb

Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 888 F.2d 1576, 1578 (11th Cir. 1989).
The Court agrees with plaintiff that the counterclaim is
permissive as it is wholly unrelated to the allegations of the
Complaint.

There

is

no

relationship

between

the

claim

that

defendants failed to pay plaintiff’s overtime wages, and the claim
that plaintiff failed to repay a loan from Scheeler’s.

Most of

the facts relating to the prosecution and defense of plaintiff’s
claim

are

distinct

counterclaim.

from

the

facts

needed

to

litigate

the

Therefore, the Court finds that the counterclaim

is unrelated to the FLSA claim, and thus is permissive rather than
compulsory.

Because defendants have presented no independent

- 2 -

basis

for

federal

subject-matter

counterclaim is dismissed.

jurisdiction,

the

permissive

See East-Bibb, 888 F.2d at 1578-79.

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Doc. #13) is

GRANTED and defendant Scheeler Cafe de Marco, Inc.’s counterclaim
is

dismissed

without

prejudice

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.
2.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate

the counter-claimants and counter-defendant on the docket, but the
case remains open as to plaintiff’s claims against defendants.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
November, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 3 -

3rd

day of