Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association et al v. City of Cleveland et al, No. 1:2015cv01917 - Document 13 (N.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/2/15 dismissing the plaintiffs' pendent state law claims without prejudice for the reasons as set forth in this order. The Court retains jurisdiction over the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim and further orders the parties to file supplemental briefs within 14 days of the filing of this order that address whether either of the plaintiffs have standing to assert FLSA claims on behalf of individual recruits and whether said claims are ripe for judicial review. (D,MA)

Download PDF
Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association et al v. City of Cleveland et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: CLEVELAND POLICE PATROLMEN’S : ASSOCIATION, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------- Doc. 13 CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1917 OPINION & ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 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 case1/ is part of the same nucleus of operative fact as the alleged violations of the Ohio Constitution and various other state laws.2/ However, state law issues predominate. The FLSA claim is a small part of the overall case. 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 1/ 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2/ United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:15-CV-1917 Gwin, J. remedies than the federal claims,”3/ 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. 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. s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 2, 2015 3/ 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 . . . .”). -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.