Reed v. Lucky Leaf LLC

Opinion

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Feb 21, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

SAMUEL MARK REED, an Case No: 2:22-CV-00196-MKD individual, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION LUCKY LEAF LLC, a Washington FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND State Company; DAVID MORGAN, in DISMISSING ACTION his individual and corporate capacity and the marital community thereof; ECF Nos. 19, 21, 54 SHILO MORGAN, in her individual and corporate capacity and in the marital community thereof, Defendants.

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 54. Defendants and Plaintiff have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 19, 21. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s federal claim, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. The parties were ordered to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation by February 19, 2024. To date, no party has filed any objection.

A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) parties may file objections to the magistrate’s findings and

conclusions. The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The parties filed no objections, and the Court agrees with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation. The Court grants summary judgment for Defendants and denies summary judgment for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim.

The magistrate judge also recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims without prejudice. ECF No. 54 at 8; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). A court must provide the plaintiff “with notice and an opportunity to be heard before sua sponte

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing” the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Ho v. Russi, 45 F.4th 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2022). The report and recommendation gave the parties notice that the Court was considering

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The parties had an opportunity to be heard through the objection process, and they have declined.

“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward

declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie- Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). Under the circumstances currently before the Court, these factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental

jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 54,

in its entirety. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim and DENIED in part as to Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

Order, provide copies to the parties, enter judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim only, dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims without prejudice, and CLOSE the file.

DATED February 21, 2024.

s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE