United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM O. BERTELSMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 6),
plaintiff's response (Doc. 7), and defendant's reply
Court has reviewed this matter and concludes that oral
argument is unnecessary.
and Procedural Background
case presents somewhat of an unusual fact pattern. Plaintiff
is the ex-husband of Jamie Rose Klements, the owner of
defendant Jamie Rose Klements DVM, LLC, a veterinary
alleges that he worked for defendant from approximately June
2017 to October 2018, and that he was not paid any wages,
regular or overtime, during his employment. (Compl.
and Klements were married on October 14, 2017. (Klements Aff.
¶ 4) (Doc. 6-1). Plaintiff ceased any involvement with
defendant in October 2018 when Klements filed for divorce.
(Id. ¶ 5). Plaintiff and Klements were
defendant's only regular workers. (Id. ¶
filed this action on August 1, 2019, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201
et seq. (“FLSA”), and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. §§ 4111.01. et
seq. (“OMFWSA”). (Doc. 1).
present motion, defendant argues that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction because defendant is not covered
under the FLSA and comparable Ohio law due to the “mom
and pop” exception. Defendant also asserts that
plaintiff has not alleged facts to support invocation of
“individual” coverage and, finally, that the
Court should decline to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
first question before the Court is whether defendant's
motion to dismiss properly raises a jurisdictional challenge
or, as plaintiff argues, whether the inquiry is a
merits-based one, rendering dismissal at the pleading stage
matter jurisdiction is always a threshold
determination.” Am. Telecom Co., L.L.C. v. Republic
of Lebanon, 501 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523
U.S. 83, 101 (1998)). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction may involve a
“facial” attack or a “factual”
facial attack “questions merely the sufficiency of the
pleading, ” and the Court accepts as true the
complaint's factual allegations. Gentek Bldg. Prods.,
Inc. v. ...