Amaia Anchustegui-Echarte v. Los Angeles Lomod Corporation

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andre Birotte Jr:DENYING MOTION to Dismiss Case For Lack of Jurisdiction 20 and SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE BACK TO STATE COURT. Remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Case number BS166096 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (shb)

with Defendant. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff was hired to be a Voucher Processor. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiff alleges that her performance reviews from Voucher Supervisors were favorable,
but on December 3, 2014, she received her first written reprimand and was terminated the
same day for insubordination. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) On November 28, 2014, Plaintiff was
asked to train a new supervisor on “how to do a $35 millions [sic] monthly Invoice [sic].”
(Id. ¶ 14.) She further alleges, “[w]here Invoices [sic] was [sic] Connie Loyola’s job, at
least 7 years on the job, Nora Barter (10 years on the job) was her assistant, Earl Hearvey
(Plaintiff’s supervisor) was next in line to help Nora and Erika Cedeno, 7 years on the job.”
(Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff asserts that she “had been there 10 months [and] . . . because the
request was very important, it should be a task for someone with more expertise and
sufficiently trained.” (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff claims she was terminated due to her refusal to
“train a Supervisor [sic] on a subject beyond her contractual job and expertise.” (Id. ¶ 30.)
Plaintiff’s FAC rests on her assertion that the termination violated Defendant’s
disciplinary procedures “[w]here Connie Loyola acting under executive powers violated
the Rules of Section IX Administrative and Disciplinary Procedures and terminated
Plaintiff [a] few hours after writing Plaintiff her first Written Reprimand.” (Id. ¶ 31.)
Specifically, “[w]here Plaintiff, and all directors [] signed an agreement by Code of
Conduct Policy [and] . . . Plaintiff was under the typical collective bargaining agreement . .
. [whereby Plaintiff] will only be terminated by fair and honest reasons regulated by good
faith.” (Id. ¶ 29.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts a claim for wrongful
termination and a claim for breach of contract against Defendant.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. (“Rule”) 8 requires a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The statement
must provide enough detail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
The Complaint must also be “plausible on its face,” allowing the Court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. Labels, conclusions, and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Under Rule 12, a defendant may move to dismiss a pleading for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on the
motion, “a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the
complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But a court is “not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

2

Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court generally may not consider
materials other than facts alleged in the complaint and documents that are made a part of
the complaint. Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir.1996); Branch v. Tunnell,
14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Galbraith v. County of
Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002). However, a court may consider materials if
(1) the authenticity of the materials is not disputed and (2) the plaintiff has alleged the
existence of the materials in the complaint or the complaint “necessarily relies” on the
materials. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted);
Branch, 14 F.3d at 454. The court may also take judicial notice of undisputed facts that
are contained in extrinsic materials. Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649
(9th Cir.1988); Lee, 250 F.3d at 689-90.
III.

DISCUSSION

The motion presents two grounds for dismissal: lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim. Because the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
the Court will not determine whether Plaintiff’s FAC states a claim but instead will remand
the case to the state court from which it was removed.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and when there is a question related
to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, that question must be resolved as a threshold
matter. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010).
The FAC alleges that jurisdiction is based upon a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But
Plaintiff does not state any federal claim. Plaintiff alleges only that Defendant breached
her employment contract and wrongfully terminated her because contrary to Defendant’s
proffered reason for terminating Plaintiff, she was not insubordinate. These are purely
state law claims so they do not trigger federal question jurisdiction. Nor does diversity
jurisdiction exist as both Plaintiff and Defendant, an agency of the City of Los Angeles, are
California citizens. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks authority
to adjudicate whether the FAC states a claim. The Court will therefore deny without
prejudice the motion to dismiss and remand the case to state court.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
removed case. The Court therefore REMANDS the case to state court. Because the
Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, it is is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

3

Initials of Deputy Clerk CB