Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05784/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05784-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

NO. C 08-5784 RS 

ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 8/24/10* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RAUL LEUVANO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HOWARD CHIEN, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-5784 RS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 Plaintiff Raul Leuvano requests dismissal with prejudice of his Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”) claim against his employer, Howard Chien. Because the defendant has filed an answer, 

Leuvano requests an Order of Dismissal from this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2). Leuvano’s FLSA claim is his sole federal claim. Leuvano further requests that 

the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The defendant has not filed papers in opposition. This matter is appropriate 

for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the motion 

hearing scheduled for August 26, 2010 is vacated. 

 In his Complaint, Leuvano seeks liquidated damages under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), 

for failure to pay overtime wages; compensatory damages for unpaid wages, missed meal and rest 

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 28 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 3
NO. C 08-5784 RS 

ORDER

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

period premiums, and waiting time penalties under California Labor Code § 203; damages for 

inadequate pay statements under California Labor Code § 226; restitution under the California Trade 

Practices Act; and attorney’s fees, costs, and interest pursuant to California Labor Code § 1194(a). 

In the course of discovery, Leuvano avers that the defendant denied his business ever met the gross 

income requirements contemplated by the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (limiting the statute’s 

scope to enterprises “engaged in commerce”); 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) (defining “enterprise engaged in 

commerce” as one that has attained a gross annual income in excess of $500,000). Accordingly, 

Leuvano acknowledges that he lacks a colorable claim under the FLSA. His FLSA claim shall 

therefore be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Leuvano also recognizes that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law 

claims, as they involve the same case or controversy as his underlying (although apparently 

meritless) federal claim. A district court may, he points out, dismiss any claims over which a court 

has supplemental jurisdiction when supporting federal claims have all been dismissed prior to trial. 

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]n the usual case in which all 

federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the 

pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point 

toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon 

University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 

(9th Cir. 1999). This is the case here. Most obviously, plaintiff seeks to apply and enforce 

California law. Moreover, despite the fact that this case is more than two years old, plaintiff’s 

dismissal motion is the first dispositive motion filed in the case. Although the parties have at least 

engaged in discovery, the Court has not invested time or thought resolving any merits-related issues. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law 

claims; these are dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 28 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 3
NO. C 08-5784 RS 

ORDER

3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/24/10 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 28 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 3