Melinda Ignacio v. Kaled Abou El Fadl et al

Filing 19

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO REMAND #13 by Judge George H. Wu. Case Remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, 19STCV17497. (See document for details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (mrgo)

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 19-7051-GW-RAOx

Date

Title Melinda Ignacio v. Kaled Abou El Fadl, et al.
Present: The Honorable

October 8, 2019
Page

1 of 3

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez
Deputy Clerk

None Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS – ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO REMAND
Plaintiff Melinda Ignacio filed a lawsuit in state court against Khaled Abou El Fadl (“El
Fadl”), Grace Song (“Song”), and Does 1 through 20, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”),
alleging: (1) sex discrimination − hostile work environment, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a) & (j);
(2) failure to prevent sexual harassment, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k); (3) constructive discharge
in violation of public policy; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) sexual battery,
Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5; (6) gender violence, Cal Civ. Code § 52.4; (7) general negligence; (8)
failure to pay overtime, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510 & 1194; Cal. Code Regs. 8 § 11150; (9) failure to
pay overtime, Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 207 & 216; (10) failure to pay
minimum wage, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197; Cal. Code Regs. 8 § 11150; (11) failure
to pay wages for missed meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 & 512; Cal. Code Regs. 8§
11150; (12) failure to pay wages for missed rest periods, Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7; Cal. Code
Regs. 8§ 11150; (13) waiting time penalties, Cal. Lab Code §§ 201 & 203; (14) wrongful
conversion, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3336 & 3294; and (15) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§§ 17200 et seq. See generally Complaint, Docket No. 1-2. Defendants removed the case to this
Court solely on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Defendants’ Notice to Federal
Court of Removal of Civil Action from State Court (“NoR”), Docket No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint which omitted the only federal claim in the case, i.e. the FLSA cause
of action. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Docket No. 12.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 19-7051-GW-RAOx

Date

October 8, 2019

Title Melinda Ignacio v. Kaled Abou El Fadl, et al.

Page

2 of 3

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (“MFR”), Docket No. 13-1. Defendants
filed an opposition. See Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Opp.”),
Docket No. 15. Plaintiff filed a reply. See Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion
for Remand (“Reply”), Docket No. 17.
Plaintiff argues that the Court should exercise its discretion to remand the case to state
court, given that Plaintiff promptly dismissed of the sole federal cause of action in this case
following removal. See generally MFR. Defendants argue that the case was properly removed
to federal court, and that the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims remaining in this action in the interests of judicial economy and public policy. See
generally Opp.
Federal question jurisdiction is determined based on the pleadings at the time of removal,
and therefore, Plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint does not require the Court to remand the
remaining state law claims. See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Int’l Inc., 344 F.3d
931, 936 (9th Cir. 2003). The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, however, is discretionary,
not a matter of right. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th
Cir.2001) (“While 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction, the United
States Supreme Court has held that district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over
supplemental state law claims in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and
comity . . . These rules make clear that the district court had discretion to decline to exercise
jurisdiction on the state law claims”). Moreover, it is well established that “when the federal-law
claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the
federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without
prejudice.” See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).
The Court would find that the interests of judicial economy are served by declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case. Even prior to amendment, state law claims
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

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

CV 19-7051-GW-RAOx

Title Melinda Ignacio v. Kaled Abou El Fadl, et al.

Date

October 8, 2019
Page

3 of 3

clearly predominated this litigation, comprising fourteen of the fifteen causes of action. See
generally Complaint. Moreover, the sole federal cause of action was voluntarily dismissed
within weeks of removal. See Docket No. 12. Defendants argue that remand is not appropriate
because the dismissal of the federal cause of action was “manipulative” forum shopping. See
Opp. at 5. However, the Ninth Circuit “has recognized that there is nothing improper about a
plaintiff asserting federal claims in state court, and then, if the defendant removes the case on the
basis of a federal question, voluntarily dismissing the federal claims and moving to remand ‘with
all due speed.’” Mackey v. Washington Mutual Bank F.A., Case No. CV-18-9048-PSG-(FFMx),
2019 WL 468804, * 2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019) (quoting Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d
487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995)). Defendants also argue that “there has already been substantial time
and resources expended on this matter, resulting in needless burden on the Defendants,” and thus
the case should remain in federal court. The Court is not persuaded by this argument. This case
was filed in state court on May 20, 2019,1 and removed to federal court on August 13, 2019. The
Defendants filed an answer to the complaint in state court on the same date that they removed the
case to federal court. See Docket No. 1-11. In this matter in federal court, the Defendants have
only filed an answer to the FAC (see Docket No. 14), and have met and conferred on a single
occasion. Those efforts on the Defendants’ part do not persuade the Court that judicial economy
weighs in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, it is noted that there are
currently nine vacancies (about 30%) in this federal district.
Given the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and remand this case
forthwith to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for further proceedings.
The Court finds that oral argument would not be helpful as to the motion and hence the hearing
now set for October 10, 2019, is taken off-calendar. See C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15.

1

The NoR asserts that the complaint was filed on March 20, 2019. See Docket No. 1 at 3. However, the
attached complaint clearly indicates that it was filed on May 20, 2019. See Docket No. 1-2.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG