Castro-Ruiz et al v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., et al, No. 3:2012cv01174 - Document 21 (D.P.R. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 18 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice; GRANTING 7 MOTION to Remand to State Court, filed by Jonathan Gonzalez-Montalvo, David W. Castro-Ruiz, Hector O. Rivera Dominguez, Luis A. Peralta-Hernandez. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 7/27/2012.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID W. CASTRO RUIZ, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 6 7 8 9 Civil No. 12-1174 (JAF) STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. 10 11 OPINION AND ORDER 12 Pending before us is Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to State Court, and their request for 13 voluntary dismissal of their federal claim. (Docket Nos. 7; 18.) This employment case came to us 14 after removal from Commonwealth Court on March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs then filed a motion 15 requesting a remand of the case to Commonwealth court. (Docket No. 7.) Defendants opposed. 16 (Docket No. 11.) On May 14, 2012, Defendants answered the complaint. (Docket No. 12.) 17 Subsequently, on Monday, July 17, 2012, Plaintiffs attempted to voluntarily dismiss without 18 prejudice their claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 the only federal cause 19 of action in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Docket No. 18.) 20 Defendants oppose. (Docket No. 19.) 21 1. Voluntary Dismissal 22 Plaintiffs framed their motion as giving notice to this court of their voluntary dismissal. 23 (Id.) However, Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires the filing of a 24 notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 25 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 26 27 28 29 Rule 41(a)(2) governs the terms and conditions of dismissal when the defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Specifically, said section provides that an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as Civil No. 12-1174 (JAF) -2- 1 2 3 4 5 the court deems proper . . . [u]nless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is also without prejudice. Therefore, it is within the district court s sound discretion. Cruz-Mendez v. Hosp. Gen. Castaner, Inc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 73, 75 (D.P.R. 2009) (citing Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 41(a)(2)). 7 Rule 41(a)(2) permits voluntary dismissal as long as no other party will be prejudiced. Doe 8 v. Urohealth Sys., Inc., 216 F.3d 157, 160 (1st Cir. 2000). In determining whether to grant 9 voluntary dismissal, courts will typically look to the defendant s effort and expense of preparation 10 for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, 11 insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and the fact that a motion for summary 12 judgment has been filed . . . . Id. This case is still in its early stages, no dispositive motions are 13 pending, and the parties have not yet started or even scheduled discovery. Plaintiffs have not been 14 dilatory, and we perceive no prejudice to Defendants. Therefore, we permit voluntary dismissal 15 without prejudice of the federal claim. 16 2. Remand 17 We now turn to Plaintiffs request for remand. Defendants, as the parties opposing remand 18 and urging jurisdiction, have the burden to demonstrate this court s subject matter jurisdiction, and 19 we note that all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand. San Antonio-Trinidad v. 20 Marriott P.R. Mgmt. Corp., 773 F. Supp. 2d 244, 248 (D.P.R. 2011) (quoting Boyer v. Snap-on 21 Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990)). Defendants argue that, despite Plaintiffs attempts 22 to voluntarily dismiss their FLSA claim, the FLSA remains implicated . . . . since the state law 23 claims . . . reference the FLSA. (Docket No. 19 at 2.) We reject this argument. Defendants cite 24 no authority when arguing that unspecified references to the FLSA should prevent remand. 25 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that the FLSA does not preempt 26 state legislation in the areas of wages and work conditions. Bolduc v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 27 35 F. Supp. 2d 106, 117 (D. Me. 1998) (citing Maccabees Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Perez Rosado, 641 Civil No. 12-1174 (JAF) -3- 1 F.2d 45, 46 (1st Cir.1981)); see also Cosme Nieves v. Deshler, 786 F.2d 445, 452 (1st Cir. 1986) 2 (citing 29 U.S.C.A. § 218) ( Section 218(a) simply makes clear that the FLSA does not preempt 3 any existing state law that establishes a higher minimum wage or a shorter workweek than the 4 federal statute. ); McCormick v. Festiva Dev. Group, LLC, Civ. No. 09-365, 2010 WL 582218 (D. 5 Me. Feb. 11, 2010) (rejecting argument that FLSA preempts the plaintiffs' ability to bring a class 6 action 23 for parallel state law claims). 7 Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their FLSA claim, but the complaint retains a variety of 8 claims under Commonwealth law statutes such as laws 80, 180, and 379. In San Antonio-Trinidad, 9 a court in this district rejected a substantially similar argument regarding potential FLSA 10 preemption of Commonwealth employment claims. 773 F. Supp. at 247 48. That court noted that 11 Law 180, 29 L.P.R.A. § 250, specifically states that the FLSA shall automatically apply to the 12 workers in Puerto Rico covered by the federal act, and held that the complaint s identification of 13 the defendant as an employer subject to the FLSA is not an attempt to seek relief pursuant to the 14 FLSA, but rather an assertion made as part of a claim under law 180. Id. (citing 29 L.P.R.A. § 250 15 (1998)). Like the San Antonio court, we also hold that the complaint s assertions do not raise a 16 substantial federal issue that needs to be resolved for [Plaintiffs] to obtain relief. Id. 17 Defendants next argue that additional federal questions at issue in this case preclude 18 remand, because Plaintiffs claims under 29 L.P.R.A. § 175 ( Law 17 ) actually arise under the 19 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( ERISA ), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (1974). (Docket 20 No. 19 at 2.) Although the Complaint contains no mention of any retirement plan, Defendants 21 argue that [t]hrough clarification from Plaintiffs counsel and Starwood s investigation of 22 Plaintiffs claims, it has become apparent that one of the deductions from Plaintiffs wages is 23 towards the Puerto Rico Savings and Retirement Plan. (Id.) Defendant is correct that any state- 24 law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy 25 is pre-empted. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004). However, Defendants -4- Civil No. 12-1174 (JAF) 1 conclusory allegations do not change the fact that no such plan or plan deductions ever appear in the 2 complaint. Plaintiffs do not seek to recover the benefits of an ERISA plan, enforce [their] rights 3 under an ERISA plan, or clarify [their] rights to future benefits. Thus, without a valid claim for 4 benefits as defined by ERISA, there is no cause of action within the scope of the civil enforcement 5 provisions . . . removable to federal court. San Antonio-Trinidad, 773 F. Supp. at 247 (citing 6 Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 209). 7 demonstrating our subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Id. at 248. Therefore, Defendants have failed to carry their burden of 8 Having found no preemption or federal claims lurking in disguise, we now determine 9 whether this case warrants remand. This court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal 10 but, after voluntary dismissal of the only federal claim, this court now faces a discretionary choice 11 not to hear the [Commonwealth claims] despite its subject-matter jurisdiction over them. Carlsbad 12 Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (citing Chicago v. Int. Coll. of Surgeons, 522 13 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) ( When a district court remands claims to a state court after declining to 14 exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the remand order is not based on a lack of subject-matter 15 jurisdiction for purposes of §§ 1447(c) and (d). ). In this pragmatic and case-specific calculus, 16 courts consider factors such as concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 17 the like . Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 257 (1st Cir. 1996) (citations 18 omitted). 19 Here, the litigation is still in its infancy, and remand would not cause undue delay or 20 duplicative effort. Tarr v. Town of Rockport, 405 F. Supp. 2d 75, 78 (D. Mass. 2005) (citing 21 Roche, 81 F.3d at 257). Although Defendants have answered the complaint, no dispositive motions 22 have been filed, and [n]one of the milestone deadlines and settings (e.g. discovery deadline, 23 pretrial, settlement and trial dates) that mark the life of a case have passed, nor has discovery been 24 conducted. Maldonado v. P.R. Indust. Mfg. Operation Corp., 352 F. Supp. 2d 161, 164 (D.P.R. 25 2004). Finally, Commonwealth courts offer the fitting forum to consider Plaintiffs Commonwealth -5- Civil No. 12-1174 (JAF) 1 law employment claims, and we find that the concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, 2 and fairness all point to a remand. In light of the preceding assessment, the small margin of 3 efficiency to be achieved by this court s retention of the case is outweighed by the countervailing 4 considerations in support of remand. Tarr, 405 F. Supp. 2d at 78. 5 We hereby GRANT Plaintiffs request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice of their 6 federal claim, (Docket No. 18), and we GRANT Plaintiffs motion seeking remand to 7 Commonwealth court (Docket No. 7.). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 27th day of July, 2012. 10 11 12 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE United States District Judge

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.