Case Activity (1781)

1. Notice | Filed: June 23, 2026 | Entered: June 23, 2026 Ryan et al v. S&R International Inc.

   Labor: Fair Standards | Florida Middle

   Notice to Counsel of Local Rule

   NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (LD)

2. Order | Filed: June 22, 2026 | Entered: June 22, 2026 Ryan et al v. S&R International Inc.

   Labor: Fair Standards | Florida Middle

   Order

   ENDORSED ORDER: On February 13, 2026, Defendants S&R International Inc. and Shane Stephens removed this case from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1 at 3). Specifically, Defendants asserted that the Court has original jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiffs' complaint includes a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). (Id.). Further, Defendants asserted that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' other claims because they arise from the same set of operative facts as the FLSA claim. (Id.). On June 3, 2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. (Doc. # 54). The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' FLSA claims against all Defendants without prejudice, finding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the FLSA. (Id. at 18, 40). The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs' purported "federal common law" claims and most of Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. (Id. 7-39). The Court ordered that Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within fourteen days (i.e., by June 17, 2026), if they wish to amend the dismissed claims. (Id. at 41). However, a review of the record reveals that Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint, the FLSA claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Having dismissed Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the Court has dismissed all claims in the complaint over which it has original jurisdiction. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that judicial economy and convenience would not be served by retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims. See Busse v. Lee Cnty., Fla., 317 Fed. App'x 968, 974 (11th Cir. 2009) ("[W]e expressly encourage district courts to [decline supplemental jurisdiction] when all federal claims have been dismissed pretrial."). Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Therefore, these remaining claims must "be remanded to state court, rather than dismissed, because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441." Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Rosencrans v. Bronz Glow Techs., Inc., No. 3:25-cv-552-MMH-SJH, 2025 WL 3513948, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2025) (same). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to remand this case to state court and, thereafter, close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/22/2026. (ATI)

3. 1779 additional result(s)