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 remand after Plaintiffs removed federal claims, finding state court better suited.
The ruling affected Plaintiffs and Defendants by returning the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and closing the federal case.
What happened
In Barlow v. Skroupa, Defendants removed the case from New York state court after Plaintiffs added a Fair Labor Standards Act claim. Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to remove that claim and all other federal questions.
The court declined to keep the remaining state-law claims because the case had been litigated in state court for almost a year but had been in federal court for only twenty days. The court also found that the expected sanctions dispute did not require keeping the case in federal court.
Judge Schofield granted Plaintiffs’ motion and remanded the matter to New York Supreme Court, New York County. She directed the clerk to send a certified copy of the order to that court and close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Barlow v. Skroupa · No. 1:21-cv-02094
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on March 17, 2020. Defendants removed it to federal court on March 10, 2021, asserting that removal was proper because the Second Amended Complaint added a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage-and-hour law.
The court later allowed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint solely to remove the Fair Labor Standards Act claims and to seek remand. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that contained no federal claims or other claims involving a federal question.
Jurisdiction and Remand
The court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, which is federal-court authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are no longer part of the case. It explained that courts consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. When all claims within the court’s original federal jurisdiction have been dismissed, the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
The court found that those factors did not support keeping this case. The action had been litigated in state court for almost one year and had been before the federal court for only twenty days. There were no pending substantive motions in federal court, although the parties had exchanged letters anticipating a sanctions motion.
Defendants argued that the federal court should retain jurisdiction over the anticipated sanctions motion and cited a Supreme Court decision involving sanctions for conduct that occurred before a federal court. The court distinguished that decision because the alleged sanctionable conduct here began while the case was in state court, and Plaintiffs had removed only the Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court stated that, after remand, Defendants could assess whether to seek sanctions under New York law in state court.
Disposition
The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ motion was granted and that the matter was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The clerk was directed to mail that court a certified copy of the order and close the federal case. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.