Mills et al v. Sodexo, Inc.

Filing 103

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Partial Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to Count III for Quantum Meruit & Count IV for FLSA Retaliation 103 is GRANTED. The parties are directed to advise the Court, on or before July 31, 2013, of any circumstances that may impact the Court's decision regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. If an independent basis for original federal jurisdiction exists, Plaintiffs shall advise the Court regarding that independent basis on or before July 31, 2013. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/22/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANTHONY MILLS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-1319-T-33AEP

SODEXO, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion
for Partial Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to Count
III for Quantum Meruit & Count IV for FLSA Retaliation
(Doc. # 103), filed July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs state that
the motion is unopposed by Defendant Sodexo, Inc. (Id. at
102). Upon due consideration, the Court grants the motion.
Discussion
Plaintiffs

initiated

this

action

against

Sodexo

on

June 12, 2012. (Doc # 1). On March 9, 2013, after obtaining
leave

of

Court,

Plaintiffs

filed

their

Second

Amended

Complaint (Doc. # 59), alleging common law fraud in the
inducement (Count I), breach of the July 2010 Settlement
Agreement

(Count

II),

quantum

meruit

(Count

III),

and

retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count IV).

On

July

19,

2013,

Plaintiffs

moved

the

Court

to

allow

Plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss Count III and Count IV of
the Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice. (Doc. # 102).
Because the motion is unopposed by Sodexo, and because the
Court finds that Sodexo will not be prejudiced by such
dismissal, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss Count
III for quantum meruit, and Count IV for retaliation in
violation of the FLSA.
With

Count

III

and

Count

IV

dismissed

pursuant

to

Plaintiffs’ request, only claims of fraud in the inducement
and breach of contract remain. The remaining claims are
both state law claims. The Court sua sponte may raise a
jurisdictional defect at any time. Barnett v. Bailey, 956
F.2d 1036, 1039 (11th Cir. 1992). The state law claims were
previously

before

the

court

as

supplemental

claims,

supported by Plaintiffs' FLSA federal question claim. See
28

U.S.C.

Plaintiffs'
federal

§

1367(a).
federal

jurisdiction

supplemental

However,

claim,
to

there

support

jurisdiction

with

over

the

remains

the

Court's

the

state

dismissal
no

of

original

exercise
claims.

of
See

Baggett v. First Nat. Bank of Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342,
1352 (11th Cir. 1997).

2

“The

dismissal

of

a

plaintiff's

underlying

federal

question claim does not deprive the court of supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” Fisher
v. SP One, Ltd., No. 8:11-cv-1889, 2013 WL 268684 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 24, 2013) (internal quotation omitted). Instead,
pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1367(c),

“the

Court

has

the

discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over

non-diverse

dismissed

state

all

law

claims

claims,

over

where

which

the

it

court

had

has

original

jurisdiction, but the court is not required to dismiss the
case.” Id. (citing Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1352). However,
“[w]here

§

1367(c)

applies,

considerations

of

judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity may influence
the

court's

discretion

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction.” Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1353.
In light of the fact that “state courts, not federal
courts, should be the final arbiters of state law,” Ingram
v. School Bd. of Miami–Dade County, 167 F. App'x 107, 108
(11th

Cir.

supplemental

2006),

the

Court

jurisdiction

is

over

disinclined
the

to

remaining

exercise

state

law

claims. However, the Court will allow the parties until
July

31,

2013,

to

advise

the

Court

as

to

any

“considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

3

[or] comity” that should influence this Court’s decision
regarding

the

exercise

of

supplemental

jurisdiction.

Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1353. Furthermore, if an independent
basis for original federal jurisdiction exists, Plaintiffs
shall

advise

the

Court

of

the

independent

basis

on

or

before July 31, 2013. If the parties fail to respond to
this

Order,

the

Court

will

dismiss

this

action

without

prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
(1)

Plaintiffs’

Unopposed

Motion

for

Partial

Voluntary

Dismissal with Prejudice as to Count III for Quantum
Meruit & Count IV for FLSA Retaliation (Doc. # 103) is
GRANTED.
(2)

The parties are directed to advise the Court, on or
before July 31, 2013, of any circumstances that may
impact the Court’s decision regarding the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

(3)

If

an

independent

basis

for

original

federal

jurisdiction exists, Plaintiffs shall advise the Court
regarding that independent basis on or before July 31,
2013.

4

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
22nd day of July, 2013.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

5