Butts et al v. Sci-Cool Aquisition Company, LLC et al
Filing
24
ORDER that this case is hereby REMANDED to the Buncombe County General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/29/2017. (ejb)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00045-MR-DLH
CHARLES BUTTS, DEREK BUTTS,
ZACHARY BOYER, and GARRETT
PHILLIPS,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SCI-COOL ACQUISITION COMPANY, )
LLC, THOMAS BAUGH III, NORMAN )
ISLAND ADVISORS, LL, THOMAS
)
BAUGH IV, MICHELE ANDERSON,
)
DAVID V. GUST, ISLAND FOREST
)
ENTERPRISES, LLC, NORMAN
)
ISLAND PARTNERS, LLC, ISLAND
)
FOREST INDUSTRIAL, LLC,
)
INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS, and
)
ALLIED PRECISION COMPONENTS, )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Sci-Cool Acquistion Company,
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14].1
1
Defendant David V. Gust also joined in the Motion to Dismiss. [See Doc. 14]. However,
on August 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Dismissal regarding all of the claims
asserted against Defendant Gust. [Doc. 23].
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed this action in the Buncombe
County General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, against the
Defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, fraud, and violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, et seq. [Doc. 1-1]. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants breached their employment
agreements with the Plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to pay withheld
employment taxes and failing to report the Plaintiffs’ wages to the North
Carolina Employment Security Commission. In addition, Plaintiff Derek Butts
asserts claims for compensation for an alleged workplace injury. [Id.].
On February 10, 2017, the Defendant Sci-Cool Acquisition Company,
LLC (“Sci-Cool”) filed a Notice of Removal of this action to this Court, on the
basis of the existence of a federal question. [Doc. 1]. Specifically, Sci-Cool
contended that because some of the Plaintiffs’ claims were based on SciCool’s alleged failure to comply with the Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
26 U.S.C. § 3121, et seq. (“FICA”), the Plaintiffs’ civil action “arises under the
laws of the United States.” [Id. at 2].
On April 25, 2017, Sci-Cool filed the present motion, seeking to dismiss
this action. In pertinent part, Sci-Cool argued that the Plaintiffs’ claims based
2
on Sci-Cool’s failure to pay FICA taxes are barred on the grounds that there
is no private right of action under federal law to enforce payment of FICA
amounts to the Internal Revenue Service. [Doc. 14].
After the Motion to Dismiss was filed, the Court learned that the
Plaintiffs’ counsel had abandoned her practice without notice to the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Court stayed the action to allow the Plaintiffs the opportunity
to retain new counsel. [Doc. 20]. On August 9, 2017, attorney George Moore
filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [Doc. 21]. On the
same day, he filed a response in opposition to Sci-Cool’s motion. [Doc. 22].
No reply was filed. Accordingly, this matter has been fully briefed and is ripe
for disposition.
II.
DISCUSSION
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States
ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). “Thus, when a
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action, the action must
be dismissed.” Id. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that
may be raised at any time. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,
519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). “If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
3
Here, Sci-Cool contends that the Plaintiffs have asserted claims upon
which relief cannot be granted because there is no private right of action
under federal law to compel an employer to pay amounts withheld under
FICA. [Doc. 14]. The Plaintiffs agree with the Defendants’ contention that
there is no such private right of action, but they contend that their Complaint
does not seek any relief on that basis. Rather, they argue, their “claims and
requests for relief are based solely on North Carolina law.” [Doc. 22 at 2].
As the parties concede, there is no private right of action under FICA.
See Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 67 (3d Cir. 2008);
McDonald v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 291 F.3d 718, 726 (11th
Cir. 2002). Reviewing the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it is evident that the Plaintiffs
have alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, all of which
arises solely under state law. As the Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim under
FICA and there are no other federal issues appearing on the face of the
Complaint, it appears that the Court lacks any subject matter jurisdiction over
this matter. Accordingly, this matter shall be remanded to the Buncombe
County General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for further
proceedings.
4
IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is hereby REMANDED
to the Buncombe County General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 29, 2017
5
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?