Wright v. Thirfty Payless, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/16/2014 ORDERING the parties are hereby ORDERED, within seven (7) days of entry of this order, to show cause why this court should not decline to exercise its discretion and retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but rather remand the case to state court.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COURTNEY WRIGHT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-CV-01681-KJM-EFB

v.

ORDER

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., dba RITE
AID, TIM HENDERSON, RITE AID
CORPORATION, and DOES ONE
through FIFTY,
Defendants.

17

Plaintiff commenced this action in the Sacramento County Superior Court,

18
19

alleging six claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) defamation;

20

(4) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) breach of the employment contract;

21

and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Defs.’ Notice of Removal, Compl.,

22

Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1.) After defendant removed the case, this court exercised federal question

23

jurisdiction because the fifth claim for breach of the employment contract alleged a dispute over a

24

collective bargaining agreement. (ECF No. 16 at 6.) See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S.

25

202, 209 (1985). On October 14, 2013, the court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

26

dismissing plaintiff’s breach of the employment contract claim without prejudice and plaintiff’s

27

wrongful termination claim with prejudice. (ECF No. 16 at 10.)

28

/////
1

1

On November 2, 2013, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, alleging four

2

state law claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) defamation; and

3

(4) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Pl.’s First Am. Compl. at 4–7, ECF No.

4

19.) The First Amended Complaint omits the fifth claim for breach of the employment

5

agreement, the only claim supporting the court’s initial exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

6

(See id.) In addition, the parties conceded at the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Quash before the

7

assigned magistrate judge that there was no diversity of citizenship.

8
9

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED, within seven (7) days of entry of
this order, to show cause why this court should not decline to exercise its discretion and retain

10

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but rather remand the case to state

11

court.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 16, 2014.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2