Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Szendrey-Ramos v. First BanCorp

United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · 2007 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurefederal questionarising underwell-pleaded complaintsupplemental jurisdictionstate claims predominatenovel or complex state lawTitle VII

Facts

Plaintiff Szendrey, former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of First Bank and Secretary of the Board, alleged that after investigating possible ethical and legal violations by bank officials and raising concerns about them, she was excluded from matters she had addressed and was later placed on leave and terminated. She alleged that defendants retaliated against her and discriminated against her on the basis of gender, and that after her termination bank officials misrepresented her role in accounting matters during an SEC investigation. The amended complaint also asserted numerous Puerto Rico statutory, constitutional, and tort claims in addition to Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Defendants argued, among other things, that the suit would require disclosure of privileged information and that the Title VII claims were inadequately pleaded.

Issue

Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico law claims when those claims substantially predominated and raised novel or complex issues of Puerto Rico law, and whether the amended complaint sufficiently stated Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The court also considered whether Title VII claims could proceed against individual defendants.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims or raise novel or complex issues of state law. On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and asks whether the complaint alleges a plausible entitlement to relief. A Title VII complaint survives dismissal when it pleads enough facts to support a plausible claim of adverse employment action motivated by discriminatory animus, but Title VII does not impose individual liability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Velasquez sues her employer, Lakefront Systems Group, in federal court in Illinois. Her complaint includes one Title VII sex-discrimination claim and seven Illinois claims for defamation, interference with business expectancy, wrongful discharge, and violations of state constitutional and statutory provisions, several of which require proof unrelated to discriminatory animus.

If the federal court has original jurisdiction over the Title VII claim, what is the best basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois claims?

Explanation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the claims within original federal jurisdiction. The majority emphasized not just the number of state claims, but also that their scope exceeded the federal claims and required distinct elements of proof. The court did not require prior dismissal of the federal claim. (Derived from Szendrey-Ramos v. First BanCorp (2007).)