Andrew Goodearl et al v. Held Properties, Inc. et al

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson re: Notice of Motion, 13 , Notice of Motion, 14 . The Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC645597. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for specifics) (mrgo)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1048 PA (SSx)

Title

Andrew Goodearl v. Held Properties, Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 2, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS – COURT ORDER

Before the Court are a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 13) and
a Motion to Remand (Docket No. 14) filed by Plaintiff Andrew Goodearl (“Plaintiff”).
Plaintiff originally filed this action in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging one federal claim
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and several related state law claims. Defendant
Held Properties, Inc. (“Defendant”) removed the action, asserting that the Court had original jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s FMLA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. In the two
motions before the Court Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint which no longer
includes an FMLA claim, after which he requests that this action be remanded to state court because the
“Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear this case.” (Mot. to Remand at 4.)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted. Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15, a party may amend a pleading by leave of the court at any time, and such leave
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(2). “This policy is ‘to be
applied with extreme liberality.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2003). The Court considers five factors when assessing a motion for leave to amend: “bad faith,
undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has
previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). “Absent
prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining . . . factors, there exists a presumption under Rule
15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (emphasis in original).
In this case, the relevant factors favor granting Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff has not
previously amended the complaint, there is no indication that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or unduly
delayed, and allowing Plaintiff to dismiss the FMLA claim will not prejudice Defendant or be futile.1/

1/

The Court also notes that Plaintiff could have filed an amended complaint as a matter of course
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1048 PA (SSx)

Date

Title

March 2, 2017

Andrew Goodearl v. Held Properties, Inc.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Docket Nos. 12, 14-1) shall be deemed the operative
complaint in this matter.
However, Plaintiff’s dismissal of his FMLA claim, does not deprive the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640, 129 S. Ct.
1862, 1867, 173 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2009) (holding that where an action has been properly removed based
on a federal claim, “[u]pon dismissal of the federal claim, the District Court retained its statutory
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”); Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l
Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 938 (9th Cir. 2003); Millar v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110,
1116 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (“[I]f a case was properly removed, a plaintiff cannot thereafter oust the federal
court of jurisdiction by unilaterally changing the case so as to destroy the ground upon which removal
was based.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is denied.
The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a). Once supplemental jurisdiction has been established under § 1367(a), a district court
“can decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over a pendant claim only if one of the four categories
specifically enumerated in section 1367(c) applies.” Exec. Software v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent.
Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555–56 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction
under § 1367(c) if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim
substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original
jurisdiction, (3) the district court dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in
exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
1367(c).
Here, Plaintiff has dismissed the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court further exercises its discretion to remand the action. See Harrell
v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] district court has discretion to remand
a properly removed case to state court when none of the federal claims are remaining.”). The Court
remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC645597. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2