Crawford v. PUD # 1 of Cowlitz County

RESPONSE

W.D. Wash.January 17, 2018

STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 HONORABLE RICHARD J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KELLY CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. PUD #1 OF COWLITZ COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendant. No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This Court properly exercised original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim, and this Court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s other claims. Plaintiff never objected to removal of Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed his FLSA claim. Instead, Plaintiff conducted discovery and obtained deposition testimony attempting to establish his FLSA claim, and proceeded to avail himself of this forum for 15 months. Discovery is now complete, and the parties have fully briefed all claims. The issues are neither novel nor complex. All that remains is for a judicial determination on the matters the parties have brought before this Court. Having conducted discovery and failed to establish the evidence necessary for his claims, Plaintiff now seeks to drop his FLSA claim, attempting to Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 1 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 forum shop and delay dismissal on the eve of summary judgment. But the mere fact that Plaintiff has failed to obtain evidence that would support his FLSA claim does not somehow retroactively deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the claims have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution. Fairness to the parties, judicial efficiency, and the need for expedient resolution of civil disputes weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction. Remanding Plaintiff’s claims at this late hour, after the parties have completed discovery and substantively briefed all claims, would needlessly increase expense and burden for the parties and would encourage gamesmanship and forum shopping by future litigants. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant factual background was set out in Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by willfully withholding Plaintiff’s wages and terminating Plaintiff’s employment. Dkt. 1-2. Plaintiff asserted claims for non-payment of wages under the FLSA and the Washington Minimum Wage Act along with other claims. Dkt. 1-2. Plaintiff conducted extensive written discovery and took depositions on his FLSA claim. Declaration of Christopher T. Wall In Support of Defendant’s Response to Order to Show Case (“Wall Decl.”), ¶ 3. After this case was removed to federal court in November 2016, Plaintiff raised no objection to removal and proceeded to litigate this case in federal court for 15 months. Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed his FLSA claim. The parties have conducted extensive written discovery, taken depositions, and twice sought this Court’s assistance in resolving discovery disputes. Id. Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 2 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY A. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims. “[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Claims form part of the same case or controversy when there is a “loose factual connection between the claims.” Fiore v. Walden, 688 F.3d 558, 586 n.22 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2004)); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966) (holding supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised where claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and the claims would normally be tried together). As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, “the whole tendency of our decisions is to require a plaintiff to try . . . his whole case at one time.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 723 (emphasis added; citation omitted). Supplemental jurisdiction embodies this policy. Id. at 725 n.13. “Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.” Id. at 724 (emphasis added) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 2, 18-20, 42). The Supreme Court has recognized that Section 1367(a)’s plain text confers a “broad grant of supplemental jurisdiction.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 558-59 (2005). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint shows that his “claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725. First, Plaintiff pled these claims in the same complaint, indicating that from the outset, Plaintiff himself intended these claims to be tried in one proceeding. Second, the substantive allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint show that the claims share a factual connection. Dkt. 1-2. The thrust of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Defendant retaliated against him by withholding his wages and terminating his Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 3 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 employment. Dkt. 1-2. The fact that Plaintiff failed to develop evidence that wages were withheld does not retroactively deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. The common factual background creates the loose factual connection required for supplemental jurisdiction. B. This Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s other claims, even if Plaintiff abandons his FLSA claim. Under Ninth Circuit law, this Court retains supplemental jurisdiction to review and ultimately decide the state law claims even if the federal claim is dismissed. Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938-39 (9th Cir. 2003). “[I]f state law claims are asserted as part of the same case or controversy with a federal claim, the district court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and the mandatory remand provision of the procedure after removal statute does not apply.” Id. at 937- 38. Such is true even where the state court claims are dismissed. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court, the Albingia court explained: Where removal was proper, but the federal question claim is defeated on the merits, the district court nevertheless may in its discretion retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Supreme Court held in Bell v. Hood that when a well-pleaded complaint states a federal claim, “[j]urisdiction, therefore, is not defeated . . . by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which the petitioners could actually recover,” and “[i]f the court does later exercise its jurisdiction to determine that the allegations in the complaint do not state a ground for relief, then dismissal of the case would be on the merits, not for want of jurisdiction.” Id. at 936 (brackets and ellipsis in original; emphasis added; footnote omitted). Supplemental discretion should be applied with “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). In Harris v. City of Seattle, the plaintiff moved to dismiss her federal claims and have her case remanded. No. C02-2225P, 2004 WL 257625, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2004). The court noted that “Plaintiff's case has been before this Court for over two years.” Id. The court had already resolved discovery disputes and noted that “Defendants have expended much effort in litigating the case in this forum.” Id. The court noted that “there are currently three pending Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 4 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 5 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 summary motions by the various Defendants that are fully briefed and ripe for the Court's consideration.” Id. Harris held, “It is well settled law that a federal court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims even after the federal question basis for removal jurisdiction is dismissed.” Id. (citing Harrell v. 20th Century Insurance Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that where the legal issues had already been fully briefed, retaining jurisdiction was in the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity); Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, (9th Cir. 1990) (same)). Harris held that “in the later stages of litigation, remand is less appropriate. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties weigh in favor or retaining jurisdiction when the issue arises late in the litigation.” Id. (emphasis added). Harris held, “economy, fairness, and convenience to the parties all weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction even if Plaintiff's [federal] claims were dismissed and there were no remaining federal questions.” Id. at *2. “At such a late date, it would not be fair to the Defendants to remand this case [and] Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any reason why fairness demands otherwise.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the court retained jurisdiction, noting that “Plaintiff is granted leave to dismiss her remaining [federal] claims if she so chooses. Doing so, however, will not result in remand.” Id. at *1. Here, Plaintiff asserted non-payment of wages under the FLSA and sought to establish that claim in discovery and depositions. Wall Decl., ¶ 3. The FLSA claim gives this Court proper subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim and all supplemental claims. The fact that Plaintiff has now decided, after conducting discovery and depositions, that his FLSA claims “fail[s] to state a cause of action on which [he] could actually recover,” does not deprive this Court of supplemental jurisdiction over his other claims. Albingia, 344 F.3d at 936 (citation omitted). Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 5 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 6 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 Judicial “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” all support an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Plaintiff’s state law claims, all based on facts already before this Court and fully briefed. Remand of the state law claims would only require Defendant to continue to expend significant time and resources defending what are ultimately meritless claims. Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court retain supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims on the merits. 1. The discretionary factors weigh in favor of supplemental jurisdiction. The discretionary factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction. Under Section 1367(c), the Court considers “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726; Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s claims are not novel or complex-they are straightforward, frequently litigated claims. Further, the state law claims do not substantially predominate over the federal claim-the claims are sufficiently related that they should be tried together. Moreover, even if the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s FLSA claim, it retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s other claims because judicial economy and fairness to litigants weigh in favor of resolving claims that are fully briefed, ripe, and pending before the Court. Finally, there are no “exceptional circumstances” here that would warrant a different result. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 6 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 7 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 III. CONCLUSION The parties have completed discovery and all claims are fully briefed, ripe for resolution, and currently pending before the Court. Defendant respectfully requests the Court retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and resolve the claims. DATED: January 17, 2018. STOEL RIVES LLP By: s/ Christopher T. Wall Amy Joseph Pedersen, WSBA No. 37976 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: 503-224-3380 Facsimile: 503-220-2480 Email: amy.joseph.pedersen@stoel.com Christopher T. Wall, WSBA No. 45873 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-624-0900 Facsimile: 206-386-7500 Email: christopher.wall@stoel.com Attorneys for Defendant Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 7 of 8 STOEL RIVES LLP ATTORNEYS 600 University Street, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 624-0900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1 Case No. 3:16-cv-5943 RJB 95479430.2 0079501-00004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 17th day of January 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties appearing in the matter. DATED: January 17, 2018. STOEL RIVES LLP By: s/ Christopher T. Wall Amy Joseph Pedersen, WSBA No. 37976 760 SW 9th Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: 503-224-3380 Facsimile: 503-220-2480 Email: amy.joseph.pedersen@stoel.com Christopher T. Wall, WSBA No. 45873 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-624-0900 Facsimile: 206-386-7500 Email: christopher.wall@stoel.com Attorneys for Defendant Case 3:16-cv-05943-RJB Document 30 Filed 01/17/18 Page 8 of 8