CHEN et al v. CENTURY BUFFET AND RESTAURANT, INC. et al
Filing
107
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 6/29/11. (jd, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONG CHEN, et al.,
v.
CENTURY BUFFET AND
RESTAURANT, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendants. :
:
Civil Action No. 09-1687 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendants’
counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) [docket entry 79]. Defendants have opposed the motion. The Court has opted to rule
based on the papers submitted and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to
dismiss.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a dispute between a group of restaurant employees and their
employer. Plaintiffs worked at Century Buffet and Restaurant as wait staff at various times from
January 2006 until the restaurant closed in December 2010. According to Plaintiffs’ Third
Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), Plaintiffs were never paid the minimum wage or proper
overtime wages, and a substantial portion of their earned tips were taken by the Defendants. As
such, Plaintiffs bring this action for minimum wage and overtime violations and unlawful
expropriation of tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs additionally assert breach of contract, conversion, and
discrimination claims.
In their answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed on February 28, 2011, Defendants included
counterclaims against Plaintiffs for defamation, breach of duty of loyalty, tortious interference
with a business relationship, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress;
state law claims all arising out of Plaintiffs’ weekly protests and dissemination of allegedly
harmful fliers outside of Century Buffet Restaurant in Clifton, New Jersey. In response,
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaims based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
II.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
This motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is governed by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs challenge subject matter jurisdiction based on the face of
the pleading, meaning that based on the claims pled and parties named, Defendants fail to
establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over their counterclaims. Turicentro, S.A.
v. American Airlines, Inc., 303 F.3d 293, 300 n.4 (3d Cir. 2002). As such, the Court must
consider whether the factual allegations of Defendants’ pleading, taken as true, are sufficient to
invoke jurisdiction. Id. at 300. The Defendants bear the burden of persuasion to show subject
matter jurisdiction exists. See Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d
Cir.1991).
2
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ counterclaims are permissive, requiring this Court to
have an independent basis of federal jurisdiction over them, which this Court is lacking. Rule 13
establishes two kinds of counterclaims: compulsory and permissive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. A
counterclaim is compulsory if it “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1)(A). A compulsory counterclaim
does not require an independent jurisdictional basis to be brought in federal court, even when it is
purely a state-law claim. Ambromovage v. United Mine Workers of Am., 726 F.2d 972, 988 (3d
Cir. 1984). A permissive counterclaim, on the other hand, requires a basis of federal jurisdiction
independent of the opposing party’s claim. Aldens, Inc. v. Packel, 524 F.2d 38, 52 (3d Cir.
1975). A permissive counterclaim is broadly defined to include “any claim that is not
compulsory.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b).
Plaintiffs’ claims arose when Defendants failed to pay them wages or overtime, and when
they withheld tips. The Defendants counterclaim that Plaintiffs’ continual picketing and
dissemination of fliers with false information constitute violations of state law. Thus, it is clear
that the Defendants’ counterclaims arose from Plaintiffs’ protests and defamatory statements and
not from Defendants’ failure to pay them, which was the underlying factual transaction giving
rise to the Plaintiffs’ cause of action. Accordingly, the Defendants’ counterclaims are
permissive.
Because Defendants’ counterclaims are permissive, this Court must analyze whether it
has an independent basis of federal jurisdiction over them. It is undisputed that Plaintiff Jing
Fang Lui and Defendant Century Buffet and Restaurant are citizens of New Jersey, rendering
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 inapplicable. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7
3
U.S. 267, 267 (1806) (interpreting the precursor to Section 1332(a) to require complete
diversity); Singh v. Daimler-Benz AG, 9 F.3d 303, 305 (3d Cir. 1993) (requiring all of the parties
on one side of the action to be of different states than those parties on the other side of the
controversy for jurisdiction to attach under section 1332). In addition, Defendants have not
stated any federal claims, ruling out jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This leaves only
pendent jurisdiction. Adjudication of a pendent state law claim is not a matter of right, but of
discretion. City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (stating “that
pendent jurisdiction ‘is a doctrine of discretion, not of [] right,’ and that district courts can
decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons”). This case
does not present any circumstances which would make the exercise of the Court’s discretion to
retain supplemental jurisdiction appropriate. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,
726-27 (1966). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Defendants’
counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). An appropriate form of order will be filed together with this Opinion.
s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
DATED: June 29, 2011
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?