Brown v. Pontus LLC, CV417-202. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20171026d40
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Dixie Brown brought suit seeking relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), sexual assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1367. However, the Court is not persuaded that it has jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff's claims.
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Dixie Brown brought suit seeking relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), sexual assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1367. However, the Court is not persuaded that it has jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff's claims. T..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Dixie Brown brought suit seeking relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), sexual assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. However, the Court is not persuaded that it has jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff's claims.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff's FLSA claims fall within the Court's federal question jurisdiction as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the Court is skeptical of its jurisdiction over the state law claims relating to the alleged sexual assault. For this Court to have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, "the state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). In this case, it is unclear how Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact as Plaintiff's sexual assault and related state law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file within fourteen days from the date of this order a brief detailing why the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
