Opinion
3:23-cv-00566-YY
11-16-2023
ANTHONY CHARLES MAENZA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
YOULEE YIM YOU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
FINDINGS
Plaintiff Anthony Charles Maenza has brought this action against defendant United States Postal Service pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 206, 207, and 211 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid regular and overtime wages that plaintiff claims are owed for the one-week period from June 4, 2022, to June 10, 2022. Am. Compl., ECF 7. Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims lies exclusively with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on September 15, 2023, and plaintiff has failed to file a response to date. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) should be GRANTED.
On April 25, 2023, the court sent plaintiff a Notice to Self-Represented Litigants, which explained that plaintiff he was required to follow this court's local rules and that “[d]eadlines are important.” ECF 6.
The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction “to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded in . . . any regulation of an executive department.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491. “The [Court of Federal Claims] has long been recognized by the Federal Circuit and other circuit courts of appeals as the exclusive ‘federal court' with jurisdiction to hear FLSA claims by federal employees in excess of $10,000 under the provisions of the Tucker Act.” King v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 396, 400 (2013); see also Grounds v. United States by& through Dep't of Energy, No. 3:17-CV-01190-HZ, 2019 WL 1270928, at *6 (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2019) (observing that for claims under the Equal Pay Act, which is an amendment to the FLSA, “jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Court of Federal Claims” when the claim exceeds $10,000). The “Little” Tucker Act grants district courts, such as this one, concurrent jurisdiction over cases that belong in the Court of Federal Claims if the amount sought is less than $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Here, however, plaintiff seeks $11,002,752 in damages, including $10,000,000 in punitive damages. Am. Compl., ECF 7. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction over this case under either the Tucker Act or the “Little” Tucker Act, and this case must be dismissed.
Defendant asks the court to dismiss this case with prejudice. However, the proper remedy is to dismiss the case without prejudice so that plaintiff “may properly bring suit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, or in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1346.” Anoushiravani v. Fishel, No. CV 04-212-MO, 2004 WL 1630240, at *16 (D. Or. July 19, 2004); see also Langan v. United States, No. 14-CV-02563-JCS, 2014 WL 4954667, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) (dismissing claim without prejudice to filing an action under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims or, alternatively, allowing amendment of the complaint to state a claim under the Little Tucker Act); Martin v. VA Reg'l San Diego Ben. Off., No. 15-CV-290-BAS DHB, 2015 WL 5821579, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) (dismissing case based on lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act without prejudice);
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18) should be GRANTED, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Tuesday, November 07, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.