C. ASHLEY ROYAL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Regero Sampson's Motion to Remand [Doc. 4]. All of the above-named Defendants have responded and oppose the Motion. Having considered the Motion, the response thereto, and the applicable law, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is
This action arises out of the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's previous employment with the Clarke County School District as an Early Head Start Family Engagement Community Partnership Manager. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff alleges that he complained to his supervisor about not receiving flex time and overtime pay to which he was entitled under applicable labor laws. Because of his complaints, he was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated by the Board of Education.
Based on these events, Plaintiff filed suit in the State Court of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia on May 30, 2014, raising claims for wrongful termination in violation of Georgia's Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4 ("GWA") and defamation. On July 2, 2014, Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to the Court's federal question jurisdiction, contending that Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to state court on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and only have the power to hear cases that they have been authorized to hear by the United States Constitution or the United States Congress.
In their Notice of Removal, Defendants seek to invoke the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction exists in 02bacivil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.02ba
Defendants argue that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff seeks recovery for a violation of FLSA. In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant never compensated him for overtime, and "[D]efendant violated [the GWA] by not paying him overtime and retaliating against him when he complained by terminating him."
Plaintiff's allegations regarding Defendant's refusal to pay overtime in violation of FLSA do not give rise to a FLSA claim. Instead, these allegations support an element of his GWA claim. To state a claim under the GWA, an employee must allege that his employer retaliated against him "for disclosing a violation of or noncompliance with a law, rule or regulation."
Even though the Complaint does not raise an independent FLSA claim, the Supreme Court has held that district courts may still exercise jurisdiction when "a state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities."
Furthermore, the Court is unconvinced that Plaintiff's boilerplate request for liquidated damages somehow gives rise to a claim under FLSA. Defendants have cited no authority for this proposition, and it is not the province of this Court to research and litigate arguments on their behalf. To the extent that these damages are not available under the applicable state law, this issue is best reserved for the state court to determine on remand.
In addition to remand, Plaintiff requests that the Court award reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred by filing the instant Motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) grants district courts the authority on remand to impose costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, on the removing party after remand. The decision, however, is a matter within the Court's discretion.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. 4] is