Bailey v. French Camp McKinley Fire District

Filing 15

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/29/17: Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint and shall file his amended complaint within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Upon filing of the amended complaint, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. Defendant's request that Plaintiff pay its filing fee of $400 is DENIED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW BAILEY,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-00223-TLN-EFB

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO AMEND AND REMAND

v.
FRENCH CAMP MCKINLEY FIRE
DISTRICT, a public entity,
Defendant.

17
18

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Matthew Bailey’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

19

Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) and Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9).

20

Defendant French Camp McKinley Fire District (“Defendant”) filed a statement of non-

21

opposition to each of Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF Nos. 10 & 11.) Plaintiff filed a reply to

22

Defendant’s statement of non-opposition with regards to the motion to amend. (ECF No. 12.)

23

Having reviewed the briefs filed by both parties and for the reasons set forth below, the Court

24

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions.

25

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 23, 2013, in the Superior Court of California,

26

County of San Joaquin. (ECF No. 1.) The case was stayed and sent to non-binding arbitration.

27

(ECF No. 8-1 at 2.) After completion of arbitration and discovery, Plaintiff sought and was

28

granted leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in the
1

1

superior court on January 11, 2017. (ECF No. 8-1 at 3.) Defendant filed an answer on January

2

31, 2017, and subsequently removed the action to this Court on February 1, 2017. (ECF No. 8-1

3

at 3.) Defendant predicated removal on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff now

4

seeks to amend his complaint to remove the only federal claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5

(ECF No. 8-1 at 6.)

6

Motions to amend are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A

7

party may amend their pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one days of service, or,

8

if the pleading is one which a responsive pleading is required, twenty-one days after service of a

9

responsive pleading or twenty-one days after service of a motion under 12(b), (e), or (f),

10

whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). After that period, the decision to grant or deny

11

leave to amend lies within the discretion of the court or the opposing party. See Swanson v.

12

United States Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996). However, Rule 15(a) provides the

13

Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In

14

the Ninth Circuit, Rule 15(a) is applied with “extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC. v.

15

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003).

16

The Court considers five factors when assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to

17

amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of

18

amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiffs have previously amended their complaint. Allen v.

19

City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990). Prejudice to the opposing party carries

20

the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC., 316 F.3d at 1052.

21

Plaintiff’s motion is not in bad faith because eliminating federal claims after removal is

22

viewed as a legitimate tactical decision. See Singh v. New Century Mortgage Corp., No. S–10–

23

0836 JAM GGH PS, 2012 WL 260461, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012). Plaintiff filed the instant

24

motion fifteen days after the action was removed to federal court and therefore Plaintiff did not

25

unreasonably delay in filing his motion. Furthermore, if any prejudice to Defendant exists, it has

26

no bearing as Defendant consents to the amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause

27

exists to warrant Plaintiff amending his complaint.

28

By amending the complaint to remove the federal claim, Plaintiff has eliminated the basis
2

1

for this Court’s federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff moves to remand this action after amending the

2

complaint and Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Court sees no reason to deny

3

this unopposed motion.

4

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint and

5

shall file his amended complaint within ten (10) days of the issuance of this order. Upon filing of

6

the amended complaint, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,

7

County of San Joaquin. Defendant’s request that Plaintiff pay its filing fee of $400 is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: August 29, 2017

11
12

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3