Mathis v. Allied Wholesale Distributors, Inc., Civ. A. No. 87-269-2-MAC (WDO).
Decision Date | 04 March 1988 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-269-2-MAC (WDO). |
Citation | 680 F. Supp. 1545 |
Parties | Charles H. MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
John A. Draughon, Macon, Ga., for plaintiff.
R. Napier Murphy, Macon, Ga., Raymond G. Chadwick, Jr., Augusta, Ga., for defendants.
Before the court is a motion to dismiss count two of plaintiff's complaint filed by defendants Allied Wholesale Distributors, Inc. (Allied) and Louis M. Ferrando. These defendants assert in their motion that, pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, count two of plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these state law claims. Plaintiff asserts, however, that this court has jurisdiction to hear his state law claims because of the federal age discrimination claim alleged in count one of his complaint. Following a thorough review of the law relevant to deciding defendants' motion, the court makes the following ruling.
Plaintiff Charles H. Mathis has asserted in count one of his complaint a claim based upon the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621-634. More specifically, Mr. Mathis asserts in count one of his complaint that defendant Allied fired him in order to replace him with a younger person. Based upon 29 U.S.C. § 626, this court clearly has jurisdiction to entertain such a claim.1
Count two of plaintiff's complaint alleges a claim against Louis M. Ferrando that is based upon state law. It appears from the pleadings that Mr. Ferrando and Mr. Mathis are both residents of the State of Georgia. Since this claim is not based upon diversity jurisdiction or a federal cause of action, the court must decide whether the federal cause of action alleged in count one confers upon this court jurisdiction to entertain the claim found in count two. Mr. Mathis asserts in his briefs that the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction allows this court to decide the pendent state law claims found in count two. Defendants Allied and Ferrando contend, however, that the proof required to demonstrate an ADEA violation is significantly different from the proof required to demonstrate the state law cause of action. Because of these distinctions, defendants contend that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the state law claims, or in the alternative, the court should decline to exercise its discretion in hearing these claims.
Id. at 18, 96 S.Ct. at 2422. This court, therefore, must look to these factors to determine whether or not it should exercise pendent party jurisdiction over defendant Ferrando.
Plaintiff's ADEA claim is not one exclusive to the federal court system. 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1) provides that: "Any person aggrieved may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such legal or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 88-1796
...other than the EEOC and federal courts would play important roles in remedying age discrimination. See Mathis v. Allied Wholesale Distributors, Inc., 680 F.Supp. 1545, 1547 (M.D.Ga.1988) (state courts possess concurrent jurisdiction over ADEA suits). The premise of the Federal Arbitration A......