Roseman v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2001
• Docket Number: No. CV401-42.,CV401-42.
• Parties: Ernest ROSEMAN, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY COMPANY, INC., and Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

Page 1332

140 F.Supp.2d 1332

Ernest ROSEMAN, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY COMPANY, INC., and Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendants.

No. CV401-42.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division.

April 16, 2001.

Lloyd Dan Murray of Lloyd D. Murray & Assoc., Pembroke, GA and Brent Savage, Robert Scot Kraeuter of Savage, Turner & Pinson, Savannah, GA, for plaintiff.

Gerald M. Edenfield, Susan Warren Cox of Edenfield, Cox, Bruce & Classens, Statesboro, GA and Charles O. Lentz, Thomas C. Kayser of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.

ORDER

MOORE, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. Defendants have filed a response, claiming that remand is inappropriate. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint in State Court in Chatham County, Georgia, alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). Defendants removed the case from state court to this Court, asserting that because the FLSA is a federal law, Plaintiff's case is removable to federal court under this Court's federal question jurisdiction as articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1441.¹ Plaintiff then filed this motion to remand, asserting that FLSA cases are not removable. Defendants have responded in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Analysis

1. An overview of the dispute

The question Plaintiff raises regarding the removability of FLSA cases is one which has caused considerable disagreement among the federal courts. Plaintiff argues that the very language of the FLSA prohibits Defendants from removing FLSA cases filed in state court. The FLSA provides that an action brought to enforce its provisions "may be maintained against any employer ... in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff argues that the use of the words "may be maintained" suggests that FLSA cases are not removable, as this phrase means that a party may maintain the case in the court in which it filed its complaint.

In contrast, Defendants argue that the FLSA, when read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1441, does not prohibit removal. In relevant part, § 1441 states that any civil action brought in state court, over which jurisdiction would be proper in federal court, can be removed "except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress." Defendants contend that the FLSA's use of the words "may be maintained" is not an express prohibition within the meaning of § 1441.

2. Analysis of the case law.

As the Court will discuss more fully in part (C) of this section, the Eleventh Circuit has yet to weigh in on the debate regarding whether the FLSA is removable. Therefore, because the Court may not look to controlling case law in the Eleventh Circuit for guidance, the Court instead examines how other federal courts have addressed the issue. After carefully analyzing the arguments various courts have made for and against the FLSA being removable, the Court finds that those courts that have held that FLSA claims are removable are more persuasive.

A. The Circuit Courts

Only two circuit courts have squarely considered the question of whether FLSA claims are removable. One court prohibited removal; one court allowed it. Compare Johnson v. Butler Bros., 162 F.2d 87, 88-90 (8th Cir.1947) (prohibiting removal) with Cosme Nieves v. Deshler, 786 F.2d 445, 450-51 (1st Cir.1986) (allowing removal).² The Johnson Court found that FLSA claims were excepted from the § 1441 removal statute, whereas the Cosme Nieves court found that FLSA claims were not excepted. The decision of each court hinged on whether or not it found the word "maintained" meant that FLSA cases are not removable. See Johnson, 162 F.2d at 88-90; Cosme Nieves, 786 F.2d at 450-51.

However, one important distinction between these two decisions leads this Court to the conclusion that the Cosme Nieves court is on more solid legal ground: the Cosme Nieves court wrote its opinion in light of a critical Congressional amendment to § 1441, whereas the Johnson court did not. In Congress's 1948 amendment of § 1441, Congress added the requirement that in order for a federal law to not be removable to federal court from state court, Congress had to make such a provision express.³ See Cosme Nieves, 786 F.2d at 446. However, the Johnson court, because it made its decision prior to this critical amendment, did not consider whether the word "maintain" was an express directive of non-removability.

Because of § 1441's revised mandate that non-removability had to be express, the Cosme Nieves court reasoned that since the phrase "may be maintained" is "ambiguous" and was "at best ... suggestive" with regard to removability, it could hardly be considered an express directive from Congress that FLSA cases were not removable. See id. In so ruling, the Cosme Nieves court was not arguing that the word "maintain" in any court could not be interpreted to mean that Congress meant "keep" or "hold." The court simply reasoned that Congress's use of the word "maintain" was not an unambiguous and clear directive, and thus § 1441's mandate that such directives be unambiguous and clear prohibited a finding that FLSA cases are not removable. See id.

This Court agrees with the Cosme Nieves court's analysis. As Judge Myron Thompson said in his opinion on the matter, "The ambiguity of Congress's use of `maintain' is self evident." See Brown v. Sasser, 128 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1347 (M.D.Ala.2000) (holding that FLSA claims are removable).⁴ Thus, because the word "maintain" is ambiguous in the FLSA statute, and because § 1441 mandates that a federal statute is only non-removable if the statute clearly directs such non-removability, FLSA claims are removable to federal court. The Court further believes that had the Johnson court in 1947 been faced with the amended § 1441 statute demanding that an express provision be provided to prohibit removability, the Johnson court may very well also have also found that the word "maintain" did not offer such an express provision, and would have found FLSA cases removable.

As the Cosme Nieves court observed, if Congress meant to expressly provide that FLSA cases were not removable after Congress enacted the amendment to § 1441, it certainly had the power to do so. See id. Moreover, since the Cosme Nieves ruling was made 38 years after Congress amended § 1441, Congress also had ample time to do so. Finally, the Court observes that when Congress so desires, it is fully capable of expressly providing that claims made under federal laws are not removable from state to federal court. See, e.g., The Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a) (1982) ("... no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.").

Thus, because nothing in the text of the FLSA expressly prohibits removal of FLSA claims to federal court, and because Congress has had the time and ability to so expressly prohibit, this Court finds persuasive the Cosme Nieves holding that FLSA claims are removable.

B. The District Courts

The district courts have not been as evenly split as the Circuit courts regarding the FLSA's being removable.⁵ Some district courts have found FLSA claims are not removable.⁶ However, the majority of the district courts have found that they are.⁷ In the district court cases, the principle rationale for deciding one way or another has hinged on whether the court agreed with the Johnson court's reasoning or the Cosme Nieves court's reasoning.⁸ In other words, courts largely base their decision on whether or not they believe the use of the word "maintain" is sufficient to find that Congress meant to say that FLSA claims are non-removable. As this Court has already observed in part 2(A), it finds that the word "maintain" is too ambiguous to be considered an express provision by Congress that prohibits removal of FLSA claims. Thus, on this point, the Court sides with the majority of the district courts who found the Cosme Nieves opinion persuasive.

However, district courts have also offered various other justifications for finding FLSA claims removable. The Court will now address these arguments, as Plaintiff in this case has raised them.

1) The Legislative History

Several of the courts that have taken the position that FLSA cases are not removable have argued that the legislative history bolsters their position, citing to a 1958 Senate Report which they characterize as evidence of the congressional intent that FLSA actions not be removed. See, e.g., Esquivel, 999 F.Supp. at 865; Wilkins, 227 F.Supp. at 648. That 1958 Senate Report states:

Congress itself has recognized the inadvisability of permitting removal of cases arising under its own laws which are similar to the workmen's compensation acts of the states. In the Jones Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Railway Employers' Liability Act, all of which are in the nature of workmen's compensation cases, the Congress has given the workman the option of filing his case in either the state court or the federal court. If filed in the state courts the law prohibits removal to the Federal court.

S.Rep. No. 85-1830 (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3099, 3106. The Courts relying on this excerpt have concluded that the report is clear evidence of congressional intent on the non-removability of FLSA claims after the amendment of § 1441. See, e.g., Esquivel, 999 F.Supp. at 865.

However, although this quote from the Senate report seems instructive upon a cursory reading, after more careful analysis it becomes significantly less persuasive. First, the Court reiterates that regardless of the legislative history, had Congress wanted to change the language of the statute to explicitly prohibit removal, it certainly has...