CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiffs Javier Saenz, Jorge Juarez, and Rebecca Arredondo filed a motion to remand their state law claims for breach of contract, assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision back to state court, while acknowledging federal jurisdiction over their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim. Defendants Austin Roofer’s Supply, LLC and Arturo Portillo opposed the partial remand. The Court granted the motion to remand for the tort claims (assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision) because they lacked a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim, thus failing supplemental jurisdiction requirements. However, the Court denied the motion to remand for the breach of contract claim, finding it shared a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim regarding unpaid wages, and therefore retained supplemental jurisdiction over it.
Saenz v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, W.D. Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, W.D. Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiffs Javier Saenz, Jorge Juarez, and Rebecca Arredondo filed a motion to remand their state law claims for breach of contract, assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision back to state court, while acknowledging federal jurisdiction over their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim. Defendants Austin Roofer’s Supply, LLC and Arturo Portillo opposed the partial remand. The Court granted the motion to remand for the tort claims (assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision) because they lacked a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim, thus failing supplemental jurisdiction requirements. However, the Court denied the motion to remand for the breach of contract claim, finding it shared a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim regarding unpaid wages, and therefore retained supplemental jurisdiction over it.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.