Barlow v. Skroupa
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-02094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barlow v. Skroupa, Judge Schofield granted leave to remove FLSA claims and seek remand of the remaining state-law claims.
The plaintiffs, including the three plaintiffs asserting FLSA claims, and the defendants were affected by the court’s permission to amend the complaint and the deadlines for any remand request and opposition.
What happened
Barlow v. Skroupa began in New York state court and was later transferred to federal court after defendants identified federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims involving three of the ten plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs asked to remove those federal claims from a new complaint and then seek transfer of the remaining state-law claims back to state court. Alternatively, they asked the court to keep the federal claims and separate and return the other claims.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint solely removing the Fair Labor Standards Act claims and to file a motion asking the court to return the remaining claims to state court. The court did not decide remand in this order.
The detailed version
- Barlow v. Skroupa · No. 1:21-cv-02094
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
The case was initially filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on March 17, 2020. Defendants removed it to federal court on March 10, 2021, stating that the Second Amended Complaint added a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal wage-and-hour law. The FLSA claim involved three of the ten plaintiffs, who were alleged to be non-exempt employees hired to work 40-hour weeks.
Plaintiffs’ Requests
The plaintiffs conceded that removal was appropriate if defendants’ filing was procedurally proper. They asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to amend the complaint and delete the FLSA claims. They anticipated then asking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand those claims to state court. Alternatively, they asked the court to retain the FLSA plaintiffs and their claims while severing and remanding the remaining plaintiffs and claims.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that federal courts have original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law and supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims forming part of the same constitutional case or controversy. It stated that courts consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The court also noted that eliminating federal claims later does not erase federal jurisdiction, although it may affect whether the court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Order
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint, limited to removing the FLSA claims. The plaintiffs were ordered to file by March 22, 2021, both any such amended complaint and any motion to remand based on the court’s discretion over supplemental jurisdiction. The court allowed the remand request to be made by letter motion. If defendants opposed remand, they were ordered to file a letter opposition by March 24, 2021. This order did not decide whether the remaining claims would be remanded.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.