Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00659/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00659-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0201fl FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

---

1

18-cv-659-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANDMARK WORLDWIDE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-cv-659-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND 

DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL 

JURISDICTION

Defendant Landmark Worldwide, LLC, removed this lawsuit to this Court 

contending that the complaint asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(“FLSA”), giving the Court original federal question jurisdiction. Even assuming that the 

fifth cause of action is a federal claim pursuant to the FLSA, the remaining eleven counts 

in the complaint are all brought under California state law. Further, the facts relevant to 

the sole FLSA claim are almost entirely unrelated to the state claims. Whether Defendant 

wrongfully characterized Plaintiff as exempt under the FLSA bears no relation to whether 

Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff, wrongfully discharged Plaintiff, or is liable for 

meal and rest period violations under California law. Moreover, the eleven state law claims 

substantially predominate over the FLSA claim in terms of proof, the scope of the issues 

raised, and the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought. See United Mine Workers of Am. 

v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–27 (1966). “Put another way, if said state law claims remain 

Case 3:18-cv-00659-CAB-BGS Document 9 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-cv-659-CAB-BGS

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

joined with the federal claim herein, the ‘federal tail’ will ‘wag what is in substance a state 

dog.’” Wong v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (USA), No. C-07-2446 MMC, 2009 WL 151014, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2009) (citing DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3rd 

Cir. 2003)). In light of the foregoing, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why 

claims 1-4 and 6-12 should not be severed and remanded to state court. The Court gave 

Plaintiff the opportunity to respond as well.

In their responses, Defendant argued that the Court should exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction, while Plaintiff asked the Court to remand the entire matter to state court. 

Neither party’s response persuaded the Court to deviate from its initial inclination to 

decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and to sever and remand them 

to state court. In particular, both parties’ arguments concerning the duplicity of litigation 

ring hollow, considering that to avoid that result, Defendant could simply consent to 

remand of the entire lawsuit to state court, while Plaintiff could simply abandon any claims 

under the FLSA. Indeed, Plaintiff indicated in her response that she would file an amended 

complaint removing any reference to the FLSA to avoid severance of her claims and make 

it possible to remand the entire action to state court.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is permitted to file 

an amended complaint in this court on or before April 18, 2018. If the amended complaint 

does not state any claim arising under the FLSA or other federal law, the Court will remand 

the entire lawsuit to state court. If the amended complaint retains an FLSA claim or 

otherwise states a claim arising under federal law, or Plaintiff does not file an amended 

complaint, the Court will remand any state law claims that are unrelated to, or predominate 

over, the FLSA or federal claim.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00659-CAB-BGS Document 9 Filed 04/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2