UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________
)
INDIRA RIOS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-1065 (RWR)
)
ABC IMAGING OF WASHINGTON, )
INC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Indira Rios filed an eleven-count amended
complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
against ABC Imaging of Washington, Inc. (“ABC Imaging”) and Wahib
Abdullahi in his capacity as Vice President of Operations at ABC
Imaging, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the District of Columbia
Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq., and unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the District of Columbia
Wage Payment and Wage Collection Law, D.C. Code §§ 32-1301 to
-1310. Rios also recited numerous common law causes of action.
The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff has moved to
-2-
remand this case to the Superior Court arguing that, at its core,
her suit is a demand for unpaid wages owed to her under D.C. law
and this court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. The defendants oppose the motion. They argue that since
this case originally could have been brought in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia because this court has federal
question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Title VII and FLSA
claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s related
common and state law claims, the case was removable. Because the
defendants have demonstrated that this court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the action, the motion to remand will be
denied.
A state court defendant may seek to remove an eligible
action to the federal district court for the district in which
the action is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Lindsay v.
Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “The
party seeking removal of an action bears the burden of proving
that jurisdiction exists in federal court.” Downey v. Ambassador
Dev., LLC, 568 F. Supp. 2d 28, 30 (D.D.C. 2008).
For an action to be eligible for removal, the district court
must have subject matter jurisdiction over it. A district court
has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. “‘The presence or absence of federal question
-3-
jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule,
which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.’” Int’l Union of Bricklayers &
Allied Craftworkers v. Ins. Co. of the West, 366 F. Supp. 2d 33,
36 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987)). A plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and the
FLSA arise under the laws of the United States. See Borg-Warner
Protective Servs. Corp. v. EEOC, 245 F.3d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir.
2001); Encinas v. J.J. Drywall Corp., 265 F.R.D. 3, 7 n.2 (D.D.C.
2010).
The presence of plaintiff’s D.C. Code and common law claims
does not warrant remanding the case. “[I]n any civil action of
which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the
district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case
or controversy[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, a district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the
state law claims substantially predominate over claims over which
the district court has original jurisdiction. Lindsay, 448 F.3d
at 421 & n.7, 425 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2)).
Here, all of Rios’s state law claims appear to form part of
the same case or controversy that arises under her federal law
-4-
claims. As such, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over
her state law claims. In addition, in each of her eleven counts,
Rios alleges that the defendants violated Title VII and the
FLSA.1 Her state law claims, then, do not predominate over her
federal law claims. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [4] to remand the case be,
and hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 31st day of October, 2012.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge
1
Although Rios’s specific allegations under each federal statute
are unclear, the claims still arise under federal law and thus
this court still has jurisdiction over this action. See Haddon
v. Walters, 43 F.3d 1488, 1490–91 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also Bell
v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946) (“Jurisdiction . . . is not
defeated . . . by the possibility that the averments might fail
to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually
recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a
proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not
for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction.”).