Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00904-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Jose Arnulfo Arias,

Plaintiff,

v.

Anthony Raimondo; and DOES 1- 20, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB

ORDER

On March 30, 2015, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Jose Arnulfo Arias’s (“Plaintiff”) Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF 

No. 34) and invited him to refile an amended complaint within 14 days. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff

has since filed a notice that he will “stand upon the sufficiency of his First Amended Complaint.” 

(ECF No. 55 at 1.) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his 

FAC, thus the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. His remaining state law claims are 

hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In a separate action beginning in 2006, Plaintiff sued his former employers, the Angelos, 

for violations of wage and hour laws. (ECF No. 34 at ¶ 2.) During the course of the previous 

litigation between Plaintiff and the Angelos, the Angelos’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo reported 

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 56 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 34 at ¶ 3.) 

Now, in the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff is suing the Angelos’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo

(“Defendant”) alleging that by reporting Plaintiff to ICE, Defendant: (1) violated the Fair Labor 

Standards Act; (2) committed intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) violated 

California’s unfair competition law. (ECF No. 34.) 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 10, 2010, which Defendant 

subsequently asked the Court to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FLSA 

claim on March 30, 2015, holding that the claim could not stand because an employee may only 

sue employers for retaliation and Plaintiff had not yet alleged that Defendant was an employer 

within the definition of the FLSA. (ECF 54. at 5.) The Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file 

an amended complaint, which Plaintiff failed to do. On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a statement 

electing to stand upon the sufficiency of his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 55.) 

II. ANALYSIS

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s FLSA claim. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff has not 

amended his FLSA claim with sufficient facts to remedy any deficiencies, thus the claim is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

After the dismissal of Plaintiff's FLSA claim, only his state law claims remain pending. 

(ECF No. 34.) Therefore, the Court may sua sponte decide whether to continue exercising 

supplemental jurisdiction. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 n.3 (9th Cir. 

1997) (en banc). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” if “the district court has dismissed all claims 

over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” “Since state courts have the primary responsibility 

for developing and applying state law, the [law does] not favor retaining jurisdiction in this case.” 

Yuhre, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44948, at *22 (citing Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001). Therefore, the Court 

declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law 

claims and they are dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

///

///

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 56 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 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

3

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. Accordingly, this 

case shall be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 56 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 3