Calderon v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.
771 F.3d 807
11th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs, former Form Works employees, allege in four counts that Form Works violated the FLSA by unpaid overtime and misclassifying workers under a county wage ordinance.
- District court required a local “statement of claim” detailing unpaid wages and misclassification, but the statement omitted the unpaid-overtime-hours claim.
- Form Works moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the statement limited the claims to misclassification.
- The district court initially held jurisdiction existed based on the complaint's unpaid-overtime-hours claim, but later reconsidered and dismissed.
- The court treated the statement of claim as amending the pleading and concluded there was no federal jurisdiction.
- The Eleventh Circuit reverses, holding the complaint itself states a federal FLSA claim and the statement of claim does not amend it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does unpaid overtime claim support jurisdiction? | Calderon argues the complaint states a federal FLSA claim regardless of the statement. | Form Works contends the statement of claim strips the federal claim, leaving only misclassification. | Yes; the unpaid-overtime-hours claim supports federal jurisdiction. |
| Can the local statement of claim amend federal jurisdiction? | The statement is a non-pleading local practice and not an amendment under Rule 15. | The statement narrows the case to a non-federal claim, | |
| thereby deleting jurisdiction. | No; the statement does not amend the complaint; jurisdiction remains based on the complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704 F.3d 882 (11th Cir. 2013) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Gupta v. McGahey, 709 F.3d 1062 (11th Cir. 2013) (intertwined jurisdiction and merits require de novo review)
- Zinni v. E.R. Solutions, Inc., 692 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2012) (jurisdictional review framework for mixed questions)
- Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) (intertwined questions treated as summary judgment when merits and jurisdiction overlap)
- Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Kelly, 280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002) (district courts have broad case-management discretion)
- Wexler v. Lepore, 385 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2004) (virtually unflagging duty to adjudicate jurisdictional claims)
- New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (federal courts may consider jurisdictional challenges at any stage)