Chen v. Oceanica Chinese Restaurant, Inc.
1:13-cv-04623-NGG-PK
| E.D.N.Y | Aug 20, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Kegun Chen sued Oceanica Chinese Restaurant, several individuals, and others under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid wages and overtime; some defendants defaulted.
- Magistrate and district courts previously denied class certification for the NYLL claims and granted summary judgment for two individual defendants, and granted Liu summary judgment on the FLSA claims but not on the NYLL claims.
- Remaining claims after that ruling: NYLL claim against defendant Xi Liu; FLSA and NYLL claims against several defaulting defendants (Oceanica, Wang, Zheng, Ye); and common-law cross-claims against Zheng and Ye.
- Liu moved to dismiss the NYLL claim against her, arguing the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the court had dismissed the federal claims against her.
- Plaintiff opposed, asserting § 1367(c)(3) only allows declination when all federal claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact have been dismissed; related federal FLSA claims against the defaulting defendants remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must or may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claim against Liu under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) | § 1367(c)(3) refers to dismissal of all federal claims arising from the same common nucleus of operative fact; FLSA claims against defaulting defendants remain, so jurisdiction must be retained | § 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal because the court has dismissed the federal claims against Liu and ordinarily should dismiss remaining state claims | Court denied Liu's motion: § 1367(c)(3) applies to all federal claims in the action arising from the same nucleus of operative fact (not just claims against the moving defendant), and related federal claims remain pending, so supplemental jurisdiction must be exercised |
| Whether entries of default against other defendants constitute dismissal under § 1367(c)(3) | Entries of default are ministerial and do not equal dismissal; thus they do not trigger § 1367(c)(3) | Liu argued that successful summary judgment against her and defaults against others justify dismissal of the state claim against her | Court held entry of default is ministerial and not a dismissal for § 1367(c)(3); even a default judgment would not necessarily amount to dismissal for § 1367(c)(3) purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (state and federal claims must stem from a common nucleus of operative fact to support supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (district court should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (entry of default is a ministerial act performed by the clerk and does not decide the merits)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (claims arise from the same set of events when they share approximately the same operative facts)