Heier v. Czika, 5:19-cv-01955

Background

Heier sued Jeff Czika, Roni Czika, Beauty Call, LLC, and Do Beauty Call, LLC alleging FLSA and Ohio wage-law violations, contract claims, and retaliatory discharge arising from her 2017 employment and an earlier case (Heier I) and its settlement.
Heier I had resulted in a settlement the defendants largely failed to pay; Heier filed this new suit in 2019 in part to enforce that settlement.
The complaint pleaded eight counts: Counts I–IV (including FLSA minimum-wage and overtime claims) primarily against Do Beauty Call, LLC; Counts V–VIII (breach, unjust enrichment, alleged post-settlement FLSA retaliation, and state-law retaliation) against the other defendants.
No defendant answered; the clerk entered defaults and Heier moved for default judgment, but she later abandoned Counts I–IV and dismissed Roni Czika due to bankruptcy.
The court assessed subject-matter jurisdiction, concluded Count VII (styled as FLSA retaliation) is actually a state-law fraud/inducement claim and, with no federal claim remaining, declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The court denied the default-judgment motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, noting Heier remains free to pursue state-court remedies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists	Heier relied on alleged FLSA claims to invoke §1331	No responsive pleadings (default)	No federal question remains because Heier abandoned Counts I–II and Count VII is not a federal FLSA claim; jurisdiction lacking
Whether Count VII states an FLSA retaliation claim	Count VII alleges defendants induced a settlement in bad faith as post-litigation retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)	No response/default; implicitly no defense	Court held allegations do not allege a "materially adverse" action under Burlington Northern and thus do not state an FLSA retaliation claim; claim is state-law fraud/inducement
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	Heier sought relief on remaining counts (state-law breach, unjust enrichment, retaliation)	No response/default	Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under §1367(c)(3) because no federal claims remain
Whether to enter default judgment	Heier moved for default judgment and damages against defaulting defendants	Defendants defaulted; no opposition	Motion denied; case dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Antoine v. Atlas Turner, 66 F.3d 105 (6th Cir. 1995) (jurisdictional defects can render judgments void)
Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters, 92 F.3d 1412 (6th Cir. 1996) (federal courts must examine subject-matter jurisdiction throughout a case)
Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071 (6th Cir. 1990) (courts should not permit artful pleading to expand federal jurisdiction)
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974) (courts may look beyond pleadings to determine jurisdictional reality)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1908) (federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2009) (application of the well-pleaded complaint rule)
Glob. Tech., Inc. v. Yubei Power Steering Sys. Co., 807 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2015) (courts look past artful pleading to determine the core activities challenged)
Adair v. Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements of a prima facie FLSA retaliation claim)
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (Title VII antiretaliation covers former employees)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation requires a "materially adverse" action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008) (applying Title VII post-employment retaliation principles in FLSA context)
Arias v. Raimondo, 860 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Darveau for applying Title VII principles to FLSA retaliation)
Berry v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, L.L.P., 940 N.E.2d 1265 (Ohio 2010) (fraud in the inducement is a state-law claim)