Joan Harp v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., 2:14-cv-07704

Plaintiffs are former hourly employees of EHM and Starline entities who sued in California state court for wage-and-hour violations (multiple California Labor Code claims and an FLSA overtime claim).
The operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) includes an express federal FLSA overtime claim pleaded "in the alternative" to state overtime claims.
Defendants (Starline entities, the Sapirs, and EHM) removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the FLSA claim.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the FLSA claim was pleaded only in the alternative and therefore did not truly create federal-question jurisdiction.
The Sapirs separately moved to dismiss most state-law claims under Rule 12(b)(6) (or for a more definite statement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was proper given the SAC includes an FLSA claim pleaded "in the alternative"	Harp: the FLSA claim is ancillary/alternative and does not create federal-question jurisdiction	Defendants: the FLSA cause of action appears on the face of the SAC, so federal-question jurisdiction exists	Denied remand — the presence of a federal claim on the face of the complaint permits removal; pleading it "in the alternative" does not negate the well-pleaded complaint rule
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims	Plaintiffs implicitly sought to keep state claims in federal court (remand motion)	Defendants argued federal court could keep pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367	Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims and remanded them to state court given the extensive state-court proceedings and comity considerations
Effect of declining supplemental jurisdiction on Sapirs' motion to dismiss state claims	N/A (motion targeted state claims)	Sapirs moved to dismiss state claims in federal court	Motion to dismiss was denied as moot because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over those state claims

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statutes strictly construed against removal)
Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc., 167 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1999) (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1936) (federal question must appear on face of the complaint)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1974) (same principle regarding well-pleaded complaint rule)
ARCO Envt'l Remediation v. Dep't of Health and Envt'l Quality, 213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff may avoid removal by omitting federal claims)
Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1986) (unanimity rule for removal among multiple defendants)
Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary under § 1367)