Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2020

TallBear v. Soldi Inc.

Judge
Susan Nelson
Docket
0:19-cv-02789
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
17
Civil ProcedureEmploymentFlsa
In one sentence

In Susan TallBear v. Soldi Inc., Judge Nelson granted dismissal with prejudice of wage claims and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court.

Who this affects

Susan TallBear’s remaining state-law claims were returned to Ramsey County District Court after her Minnesota wage-payment and FLSA-relief claims were dismissed with prejudice; Soldi Inc. and Z&H Hospitality L.L.C. remained defendants in the remanded action.

What happened

Susan TallBear sued Soldi Inc., Z&H Hospitality L.L.C., and Antonio Tettamanzi over several state-law employment claims. Soldi and Z&H moved the case from state court to federal court, arguing that the complaint raised federal wage-law issues. TallBear asked the federal court to send the case back.

The court found that the complaint raised a substantial federal question when the defendants removed it, based on allegations about unpaid overtime and a federal wage law. During the case, TallBear asked to dismiss her Minnesota wage-payment claim and her request for relief under that federal law. The court found that dismissal would not harm the defendants, and that the remaining state-law claims should be handled in state court.

Judge Nelson granted TallBear’s oral motion to dismiss the Minnesota wage-payment claim and the federal wage-law relief claim with prejudice. She also granted TallBear’s motion to remand the case under the supplemental-jurisdiction statute, sending the remaining claims to Ramsey County District Court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
TallBear v. Soldi Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-02789
Judge
Susan Nelson
Date
May 14, 2020

Background

Susan TallBear brought a five-count amended complaint against her former employers. The complaint asserted state-law claims involving discrimination, fraudulent conveyance, retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and unpaid wages under Minnesota’s Wage Payment Statute. It also alleged that TallBear had worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and sought liquidated damages, a remedy available under the FLSA.

Soldi Inc. and Z&H Hospitality L.L.C. removed the action from state court based on federal-question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. TallBear moved to remand, arguing that her references to the FLSA merely supported her state-law retaliation claim and did not create federal jurisdiction. The opinion states that Antonio Tettamanzi had not been properly served and was not yet a party to the action.

Federal Jurisdiction at Removal

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction is generally determined from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint at the time of removal. A state-law claim can also support federal jurisdiction when it necessarily raises a substantial and disputed federal issue.

The court concluded that the amended complaint raised a substantial federal question at the time of removal. It expressly alleged violations of the FLSA overtime requirement, sought liquidated damages associated with the FLSA, and based the Minnesota unpaid-wage claim on work exceeding 40 hours per week. The court reasoned that the allegations could not be supported by Minnesota’s wage law alone because the state statute referenced in the opinion required overtime after 48 hours, while TallBear alleged that she was owed overtime for working more than 40 hours.

The court therefore held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction when the defendants removed the action. It ruled that remand was not required under the statute governing remand for lack of jurisdiction.

Voluntary Dismissal

After removal, TallBear orally moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss with prejudice her Minnesota Wage Payment Statute claim and her claim for express relief under the FLSA. Because the defendants had already served answers, the dismissal required court approval.

The court found that TallBear had provided a proper explanation: the wage claims were minor and were not central to the case. The defendants identified no specific harm from dismissal, and the court found that dismissal would not waste judicial resources or prejudice them. The court therefore granted the oral motion to dismiss those claims with prejudice.

Discretionary Remand

After dismissing the claims that supported federal jurisdiction, the court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The relevant considerations included judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the retaliation claim required the federal court to retain the case. It found that the retaliation claim was based on state law and that any federal-law issue involved only a fact-specific inquiry into TallBear’s good-faith belief that the law had been violated, rather than an unsettled or substantial question requiring a federal forum. The parties had not conducted discovery, and the court had invested minimal time and resources in the case.

The court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and remanded the action to Ramsey County District Court.

Disposition

The court: (1) granted TallBear’s oral motion to dismiss with prejudice her Minnesota Wage Payment Statute claim and her claim for express relief under the FLSA; (2) granted TallBear’s motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and (3) directed the clerk to send a certified copy of the order to the clerk of Ramsey County District Court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.