Opinion
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1917
12-02-2015
CLEVELAND POLICE PATROLMEN'S ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER :
In this case Plaintiffs Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association ("CPPA") and its president, Steve Loomis, seek damages and injunctive relief from Defendant City of Cleveland, Ohio's ("Cleveland") decision to move its peace officer training from Cleveland to Columbus. Plaintiffs allege violations of various state laws as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA").
After reviewing the pleadings of this case, the Court concludes that the Court would likely have pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. The FLSA claim that could give the Court subject matter jurisdiction over the case is part of the same nucleus of operative fact as the alleged violations of the Ohio Constitution and various other state laws. However, state law issues predominate. The FLSA claim is a small part of the overall case.
United Mine Workers of Am . v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
The interests of comity, judicial economy, and ensuring "a surer footed reading of state law in state court" and the fact that "the state law claims have broader and different elements and remedies than the federal claims," favor declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' pendent state law claims. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs' pendent state law claims and retains jurisdiction over the remaining FLSA claim.
Coleman v . Wirtz, 745 F. Supp. 434, 441 (N.D. Ohio 1990) aff'd, 985 F.2d 559 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 727 (1966)) (". . . Courts have interpreted Gibbs . . . as allowing courts, in their discretion, to dismiss, sua sponte, pendent state law claims . . . ."). --------
The Court's jurisdiction over the FLSA claim, however, is still uncertain due to Plaintiffs' potential lack of standing in this case. The Court therefore ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of Plaintiffs' standing to bring this FLSA claim in federal court. The briefs should address whether Plaintiff Loomis or Plaintiff CPPA has standing to assert FLSA claims on behalf of individual recruits and whether these FLSA claims are ripe for judicial review. These briefs shall be filed within fourteen days of the filing of this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2015
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE