MELANIA FELIX DE ASENCIO; MANUEL A. GUTIERREZ; ASELA RUIZ; EUSEBIA RUIZ; LUIS A. VIGO; LUZ CORDOVA; HECTOR PANTAJOS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Appellant, 342 F.3d 301

Summary

The motion was granted 17 months after the employees gained certification of an opt-in class under 29 U.S.C.S. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 201-219. The employer argued that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the WPCL opt-out action. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the action. The court held that the district court did not exercise sound discretion in granting supplemental jurisdiction over the WPCL action. Although the court agreed with the district court's ruling that the FLSA and WPCL actions arose from the same controversy and shared a common nucleus of operative fact, the court determined that the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c) because the state law action substantially predominated over the FLSA action. The court found that the inordinate size of the state law class, the different terms of proof required by the implied contract state law ...