Mills et al v. Sodexo, Inc.

Filing 121

ORDER: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. Counts I and II are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/2/2013. (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.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Because
only state law claims now remain in this action, the Court
in

its

discretion

declines

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ fraud in the inducement and
breach

of

contract

claims.

Accordingly,

this

case

is

dismissed without prejudice.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs

Danielle

Pye,

Anthony
Melissa

Mills,

Connie

Wigfall,

Daniels,

Virginia

Genethel

Larry,

Melissa

Worley, Malisa Butler, Kimberly Harris, and Markis Flanders
initiated

this

June

12,

2012.

obtaining

leave

Amended

action
(Doc.
of

Complaint,

against
#

Court,

1).

Defendant

Sodexo,

On

9,

March

Plaintiffs

alleging

common

filed
law

Inc.

2013,
their

fraud

on

after
Second

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).1
(Doc.

#

59).

On

July

22,

2013,

the

Court

granted

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Count
III and Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint, with
prejudice.

(Doc.

#

103).

With

Count

III

and

Count

IV

dismissed pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, only the state
law

claims

of

fraud

in

the

inducement

and

breach

of

contract remain.
In its July 22, 2013, Order, the Court instructed the
parties to advise the Court, on or before July 31, 2013, of
any circumstances that might “impact the Court’s decision
regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.” (Id. at 4). The Court also stated,
“If an independent basis for original federal jurisdiction
exists, Plaintiffs shall advise the Court regarding that
independent basis on or before July 31, 2013.” (Id.).
On July 30, 2013, Plaintiffs responded to the Court’s
Order, stating:
There is no independent basis for original
federal jurisdiction for the non-diverse state
1

The Second Amended Complaint does not include Kimberly
Harris or Markis Flanders as Plaintiffs in this action.

2

law claims. In the absence of Plaintiffs’ federal
claim, the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the non-diverse
state law claims and dismiss them without
prejudice to being refiled in the appropriate
Florida state court in accord with the criteria
embodied in § 1367 (c)(1-4).
(Doc. # 118 at 1). Sodexo filed its response to the Court’s
Order
retain

on

July

31,

2013,

supplemental

and

requested

jurisdiction

over

that

this

this

case

Court

to

its

resolution. (Doc. # 120).
II.

Legal Standard
The Court sua sponte may raise a jurisdictional defect

at any time. Barnett v. Bailey, 956 F.2d 1036, 1039 (11th
Cir. 1992). “[I]n any civil action of which the district
courts have original jurisdiction,”

district courts

also

have supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that
are so related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction
controversy
district

that
.

court

.

they
.
may

.”

form
28

part

U.S.C.

decline

to

of
§

the

same

1367(a).

exercise

case

However,

or
a

supplemental

jurisdiction over such a claim if “the district court has
dismissed

all

claims

over

which

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

3

it

has

original

“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, at *10
(M.D.

Fla.

Jan.

24,

2013)

(internal

quotation

omitted).

Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), “the [c]ourt has
the

discretion

to

decline

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims, where the
court has dismissed all claims over which it had original
jurisdiction, but the court is not required to dismiss the
case.”

Id.

(citing

Baggett

v.

First

Nat’l

Bank

of

Gainesville, 117 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 1997)). “Where
§

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.
Although

a

district

court

may

choose

to

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction and retain a case, “state courts,
not federal courts, should be the final arbiters of state
law.” Ingram v. Sch. Bd. of Miami–Dade Cnty., 167 F. App’x
107, 108 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Hicks v. Moore, 422
F.3d 1246, 1255 n.8 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Certainly, if the
federal claims are dismissed before trial, . . . the state

4

claims should be dismissed as well.”) (internal quotation
and citation omitted); Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d
1086,

1088–89

(11th

Cir.

2004)

(“We

have

encouraged

district courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when,
as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to
trial.”).
III. Analysis
The state law claims in this action were previously
before

the

Court

as

supplemental

claims,

supported

by

Plaintiffs’ FLSA federal question claim. See 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). However, with the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FLSA
claim, there remains no original federal jurisdiction to
support the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
over the state claims. See Baggett, 117 F.3d at 1352.
Plaintiffs

state

that

complete

diversity

does

not

exist in this case. (Doc. # 118 at 1). Accepting counsel’s
claim as true,
jurisdiction

the Court

pursuant

to

finds that it
28

U.S.C

§

lacks diversity

1332(a)

over

the

remaining claims.
“The

decision

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction

over pendant state claims rests within the discretion of
the district court.” Raney, 370 F.3d at 1088–89. As stated
above,

considerations

of

judicial

5

economy,

convenience,

fairness, and comity may influence the Court’s discretion
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Baggett, 117 F.3d at
1353. While dismissal may inconvenience the parties, such
inconvenience does not justify retaining jurisdiction over
claims that should be decided by state courts. The parties
have not provided the Court with an independent basis for
original federal jurisdiction and, therefore, in light of
the often articulated preference for state courts to be the
final arbiters of state law, the Court in its discretion
declines

to

exercise

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state
law claims. Counts I and II are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
2nd day of August, 2013.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

6