Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-07009/USCOURTS-caDC-14-07009-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew W. Elliott
Appellant
David Sickle
Appellant
Scott Torres
Appellee
Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 14-7009 September Term, 2015

 FILED ON: JUNE 7, 2016

DAVID SICKLE AND MATTHEW W. ELLIOTT,

APPELLANTS

v.

TORRES ADVANCED ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC, ALSO KNOWN AS TORRES AES, LLC AND 

SCOTT TORRES,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:11-cv-02224)

 Before: ROGERS, SRINIVASAN, and MILLETT, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The court has afforded the 

issues full consideration and has determined that they do not presently warrant a published opinion. 

See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants’ 

claims under 33 U.S.C. § 948a and 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a) be affirmed. Appellants did not exhaust 

their administrative remedies for those claims before filing suit. See Brink v. Continental Ins. Co., 

787 F.3d 1120, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2015). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the dismissal of Appellants’ only federal-law 

claims, the record be remanded to the district court for a determination whether subject-matter 

jurisdiction exists to decide Appellants’ remaining common-law claims, either as a discretionary 

exercise of supplemental jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction as the amended complaint asserts. See 

Tate v. District of Columbia, 627 F.3d 904, 913 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (remanding plaintiff’s common-law 

claims “for the district court to determine in its discretion whether to decide their merits or to dismiss 

them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)”); Minker v. Baltimore Annual 

Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (directing district 

court to determine on remand whether diversity jurisdiction existed where court affirmed dismissal 

of claims providing federal question jurisdiction). It is

USCA Case #14-7009 Document #1617223 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 1 of 2
2

FURTHER ORDERED that, as this court retains jurisdiction over this appeal, this case will

be held in abeyance pending resolution of the limited jurisdictional question on remand. The Clerk 

is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the district court. The district court is requested to 

notify this court promptly upon its determination of the jurisdictional issue identified herein. The 

parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings in this appeal within 21 days of the 

district court’s determination.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed 

to withhold issuance of the mandate herein pending resolution of the remainder of the appeal. See

FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

 Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #14-7009 Document #1617223 Filed: 06/07/2016 Page 2 of 2