Marlena Aldrich v. University of Phoenix, 661 F. App'x 384

Background

Two former University of Phoenix employees (Aldrich and Nolan) sued in Kentucky state court for wrongful termination and unpaid overtime; they sought to bring the overtime claim as a class action.
University removed the case to federal court on the basis of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and alleged the amount-in-controversy exceeded $75,000; the removal notice did not explicitly cite 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) or § 1332(d) (CAFA).
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing the notice was defective for failing to cite supplemental jurisdiction/CAFA and that the named plaintiffs’ overtime claims alone did not meet the $75,000 threshold.
The district court denied remand, found federal jurisdiction proper (including supplemental jurisdiction over the class claims), and granted the university’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.
The arbitration provision was in the employee handbook distributed electronically in 2012 with an acknowledgment form; university records showed electronic acknowledgments by both plaintiffs, while plaintiffs submitted affidavits denying receipt/signature.
The district court held Kentucky law binds employees to arbitration by continued employment (no signature required) and that mutual forbearance to sue provided consideration; it dismissed without prejudice pending arbitration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of removal notice	Removal defective because it did not expressly cite § 1367 or CAFA; thus remand required	Notice satisfied § 1446's short-and-plain-statement and need not cite supplemental-jurisdiction statute	Removal proper; explicit citation to § 1367 not required when notice otherwise pleads jurisdictional facts
Existence of federal jurisdiction over class claims	Class (overtime) claims cannot be included under supplemental jurisdiction because the overtime claim alone does not meet $75,000	Complete diversity and aggregation of the named plaintiffs’ claims satisfy § 1332; related class claims fall under § 1367(a)	District court had original jurisdiction via aggregated named-plaintiff claims; supplemental jurisdiction over class members proper
Effect of Exxon/"anchor claim" doctrine	Exxon requires an independently jurisdictional anchor claim (not met if aggregation required)	Exxon permits jurisdiction over a civil action once at least one claim satisfies jurisdictional requirements; aggregation that establishes jurisdiction supports § 1367	Exxon does not bar supplemental jurisdiction here; aggregation of named plaintiffs’ claims gave original jurisdiction and § 1367 applied
Enforceability of arbitration agreement	Plaintiffs deny signing/receiving the acknowledgement form and argue a factual dispute exists requiring a trial	University says handbook and acknowledgment procedure were provided; continued employment manifested assent; mutual waiver of court rights supplies consideration	No genuine factual dispute material to formation: under Kentucky law continued employment manifested assent; arbitration and class-waiver enforceable

Key Cases Cited

Voyticky v. Vill. of Timberlake, Ohio, 412 F.3d 669 (6th Cir.) (party need not plead supplemental-jurisdiction statute in complaint or removal notice)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (U.S.) (removal pleading standard tracks Rule 8's short-and-plain-statement requirement)
Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818 (6th Cir.) (a plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims to meet diversity amount-in-controversy)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S.) (if one claim in the complaint satisfies amount-in-controversy, the court may exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over related claims)
Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir.) (standard for when validity of arbitration agreement is "in issue")
Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.) (arbitration-agreement validity "in issue" triggers right to a trial on factual disputes)