Qualls v. Family Shelter of Southern Oklahoma

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay granting in part 19 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment; remanding case (terminates case) (trl, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RETHA QUALLS,

)
)
)
)
) No. CIV-11-205-FHS
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FAMILY SHELTER OF S. OKLAHOMA,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 19) filed by Defendant, Family Shelter of S.
Oklahoma

(“Family

Shelter”).

In

its

motion,

Family

Shelter

contends it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

claims

for (1) retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206, and (2) violation of Oklahoma public
policy.

In response, Plaintiff confesses the FLSA claim by

acknowledging that Family Shelter is not a covered entity under the
FLSA.

Consequently, the Court finds that summary judgment is

appropriate in favor of Family Shelter on Plaintiff’s FLSA claim.
This action was removed from the District Court of Carter
County, Oklahoma, by virtue of Plaintiff’s FLSA claim giving rise
to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Having

granted summary judgment to Family Shelter on the only claim
supporting federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must
consider whether to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining public policy tort claim, or Burk claim.

28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3)

to

provides

that

the

Court

“may

decline

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court
has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
1

In determining whether it should exercise its discretion and
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court considers the factors
of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

City of

Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173
(1997).

As this action is in the relatively early stages of the

proceedings and there does not appear to be any inconvenience to
proceeding

in

state

court,

the

factors

of

judicial

economy,

convenience, and fairness tip slightly in favor of remand.

Of

particular importance in this litigation is the issue of comity.
Typically, “notions of comity and federalism demand that a state
court try its own lawsuits, absent compelling reasons to the
contrary.”

Thatcher Enterprises v. Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d

1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1990). Thus, when federal claims are resolved
prior to trial, the district court’s “most common response” is to
decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims and allow
the plaintiff to pursue them in state court.
F.3d

664,

669

(10th

Cir.

1995).

A

Ball v. Renner, 54

remand

is

particularly

appropriate in cases where the state law claim is “in a process of
current evolution.” Id. Here, the contours of the Oklahoma public
policy tort, or Burk claim, are constantly evolving and principles
of comity weigh in favor of a state court addressing the respective
arguments of the parties and clarifying the contours of Oklahoma
public policy tort law.

Consequently, after weighing the relevant

factors, the Court finds it appropriate to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law
claim.
Based on the foregoing reasons, Family Shelter’s Motion for
Summary

Judgment

Plaintiff’s

FLSA

(Dkt.

No.

claim.

19)

is

granted,

The

Court

in

declines

part,
to

as

to

exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim, or Burk
claim, and finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
2

remainder of Plaintiff’s action.

This case is therefore ordered

remanded to the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to

remand this case to the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma.
It is so ordered this 25th day of April, 2012.

3