Armento v. Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry, Inc.

Filing 68

ORDER denying 67 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/5/2019. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00150-MR-DLH

GREGORY ARMENTO,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
ASHEVILLE BUNCOMBE
)
COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN
)
MINISTRY, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 67].
On March 27, 2019, the Court entered an Order dismissing the
Plaintiff’s federal law claims but denying the Defendant’s motions to dismiss
and for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims for minimum
wage and overtime violations under North Carolina law. [Doc. 66]. The
Defendant now seeks the dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff’s
remaining state law claims. [Doc. 67].
Section 1367 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:

[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction, the district courts shall
have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims
that are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy under Article III of the United
States Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Plaintiff’s state law claims here were “so related”
to his federal wage and overtime claims that they formed part of the same
case or controversy.

Accordingly, the Court may properly exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.
The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

“[T]rial courts enjoy wide

latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over state claims
when federal claims have been extinguished.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d
106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995). “Among the factors that inform this discretionary
determination are convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of
any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial
economy.” Id.
The present case has been pending for more than two years. Trial is
currently scheduled in a little more than thirty days. Dismissal of the pro se

2

Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims at this late stage of the proceedings
would not be either fair or convenient to the parties, nor would it be the most
efficient use of judicial resources.

Accordingly, in the exercise of its

discretion, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 67] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 5, 2019

3