Hodges v. In Shape Health Clubs, LLC
Filing
19
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/2/2017 ORDERING 8 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to include state law FEHA claims; Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within 10 days of this order's filing; D efendant may file a responsive pleading or the parties may file a stipulation within 20 days of the amended complaint's filing consistent with the Court's recommendation; the Court takes Plaintiff's motion to remand under SUBMISSION.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIFFANY ANNE HODGES,
12
2:17-cv-01274-JAM-DB
Plaintiff,
13
14
No.
v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
IN SHAPE HEALTH CLUBS, LLC, a
limited liability company,
15
Defendant.
16
This matter comes before the Court upon Tiffany Anne
17
18
Hodges’s (“Plaintiff” or “Hodges”) Motion to Remand and for Leave
19
to Amend.
20
(“Defendant” or “In Shape”) opposes Hodges’s motions. Opp’n, ECF
21
No. 13.
22
the Court GRANTS Hodges Leave to Amend and takes her Motion for
23
Remand under submission. 1
24
///
25
///
Mot. & Mem., ECF Nos. 8–9.
In Shape Health Clubs
Having reviewed the parties' briefs and applicable law,
26
27
28
1
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for September 19, 2017.
1
1
2
I.
BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2017, Hodges filed a complaint in San
3
Joaquin County Superior Court against her former employer, In
4
Shape, alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
5
No. 2.
6
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7
filed a notice of removal, invoking the Court’s federal question
8
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337(a).
9
Removal, ECF No. 2.
10
Motion to Dismiss.
11
month, Hodges filed a joint Motion to Remand and to “Correct
12
Pleading under (FRCP 15(1)(b)(1).”
Compl., ECF
Hodges pleaded two causes of action, both under Title VII
Id.
On June 21, 2017, In Shape
Notice of
A week later, In Shape filed a Rule 12(b)(6)
Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7.
The following
Mem., ECF No. 9.
13
The Court dismissed In Shape’s Motion without prejudice for
14
failure to comply with the Court’s Meet and Confer Requirements.
15
Min. Order, ECF No. 15.
16
Hodges’s Motion.
Accordingly, the Court considers only
17
18
19
20
21
II.
A.
OPINION
Legal Standard
1.
Removal
As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts possess
22
only that jurisdiction authorized by either the Constitution or
23
federal statute.
24
U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
25
“all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
26
treaties of the United States.”
27
“arises under” federal law if a plaintiff’s “well-pleaded
28
complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
Federal courts have jurisdiction over
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2
A case
1
of action” or that the plaintiff’s “right to relief under state
2
law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law
3
in dispute between the parties.”
4
Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983).
5
civil action may be removed to a federal district court only if
6
the court has original jurisdiction over the issues alleged in
7
the state court complaint.
8
9
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.
A
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
To determine whether removal is proper, a court should
“strictly construe the removal statute against removal
10
jurisdiction.”
11
1992) (per curiam).
12
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
13
instance.”
14
See id.
15
to state court.”
16
1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).
17
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
Id.
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
The removing party must show removal is proper.
“[T]he court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand
2.
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039,
Amendment
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides:
19
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend
its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a
motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever
is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)–(2).
Whether to grant or deny leave to amend lies within the
3
1
district court’s discretion, although leave to amend “shall be
2
freely given when justice so requires.”
3
U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see also
4
Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d
5
1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (“In general, a court should
6
liberally allow a party to amend its pleading.”).
7
Foman v. Davis, 371
“Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there
8
is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive
9
on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
10
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
11
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or]
12
futility of amendment, etc.’ ”
13
(quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
14
15
3.
Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d at 1117
Remand
When assessing federal jurisdiction, a court must analyze
16
the pleadings filed at the time of removal, and not any
17
subsequent amendments.
18
of Secs. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998),
19
abrogated on other grounds by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
20
Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (2016).
Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Ass’n
21
When a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate the
22
federal question upon which proper removal was based, the
23
district court has several options.
24
discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims.
25
v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997).
26
The conditions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and “economy,
27
convenience, fairness, and comity” interests guide the inquiry
28
into whether to decline or retain jurisdiction.
4
The court may exercise its
Acri
Id. at 1001.
1
“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are
2
eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point
3
toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
4
state-law claims.”
5
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)).
6
When relinquishing jurisdiction, the district court must then
7
choose whether to dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice
8
or to remand the case to state court.
9
U.S. at 351–52.
Id. at 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
See Carnegie-Mellon, 484
10
When considering remand, the court may also consider
11
whether a party engaged in manipulative tactics to secure her
12
desired forum.
13
claims after removal is not evidence, in itself, of manipulative
14
tactics.
15
Cir. 1995).
16
amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon
17
which removal was based,” Sparta Surgical, 159 F.3d at 1213
18
(emphasis added), the Ninth Circuit has called elimination of
19
federal claims after removal a “straight-forward tactical
20
decision.”
21
federal claims after removal “solely in order to obtain remand”
22
did not warrant Rule 11 sanctions).
23
24
B.
Id. at 357.
But amendment to eliminate federal
Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th
Although a plaintiff may not “compel remand by
Baddie, 64 F.3d at 491 (finding amendment to omit
Analysis
1.
Defendant Properly Removed Plaintiff’s Original
Complaint
25
26
Here, In Shape properly removed the case because Hodges’s
27
claims arose under federal law.
It is abundantly clear Hodges’s
28
original complaint relied solely on Title VII, which appeared in
5
1
the heading for each cause of action and on nearly every page.
2
See generally Compl.
3
mentioned, despite Hodges’s counsel’s incorrect assertion that
4
California Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA") was referenced
5
along with Title VII.
6
Court analyzes federal jurisdiction based on the pleadings filed
7
at time of removal, Sparta Surgical, 159 F.3d at 1213, Hodges’s
8
references to Title VII conferred original jurisdiction on this
9
Court and formed a proper basis for removal.
10
2.
No other state or federal acts were
Compare Compl. with Mot.
Because the
The Court Grants Plaintiff Leave to Amend the
Complaint
11
12
Upon being notified by In Shape’s Motion to Dismiss that
13
her Title VII claims were time-barred, Hodges sought to
14
“correct” her complaint under “FRCP 15(1)(b)(1).”
15
Despite a diligent search, the Court is unable to find any
16
mention of a Rule 15(1)(b)(1) in state or federal law.
17
from the content of Hodges’s pleadings, it appears the intended
18
cite was to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), from which
19
a plaintiff may seek leave of court to amend her complaint.
Mem. at 1–2.
Judging
20
Had Hodges sought to amend two days earlier, on July 19,
21
2017, she would have fallen within the 21-day window in which
22
she could have amended her complaint as a matter of course.
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
24
July 21, 2017 seeking to “correct the pleading by deleting the
25
references to Title VII contained in the Complaint.”
26
p. 2.
27
references to state law claims under FEHA, which the original
28
complaint never mentioned.
See
Instead, she filed a motion on
ECF No. 9,
Omitted from that request is the need to substitute
6
1
Perplexingly, Hodges’s reply brief focuses on arguing
2
against binding arbitration and alleging that In Shape somehow
3
engaged in forum shopping by properly removing Hodges’s Title
4
VII claims to federal court.
5
to bring state law claims and challenge the arbitration
6
agreement’s validity, she could have saved time and effort by
7
doing so in her original complaint in San Joaquin County
8
Superior Court.
9
law claims in her original complaint was an intentional strategy
See ECF No. 17.
Had Hodges wanted
Instead, it appears Hodges’s omission of state
10
to avoid wrangling with the arbitration agreement.
11
Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 13-2, p. 5 (stating plaintiff “will be
12
filing suit under Title VII (the arbitration agreement is
13
limited to claims arising under state law)”).
14
See Valenza
Hodges’s counsel never explains how pleading federal claims
15
was a mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid
16
arbitration.
17
a “mistake in a pleading”).
18
as to how the original complaint complied with Rule 11, which
19
requires individuals to perform a reasonable inquiry into
20
whether a party’s “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions
21
are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
22
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
23
establishing new law.”
24
counsel engaged in such an inquiry, he would have quickly
25
realized the Title VII claims were time-barred when Hodges filed
26
her February 2017 complaint.
27
28
Mem. at 2 (alleging “references to TITLE VII” were
Similarly lacking is any argument
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2).
Had Hodges’s
While Hodges’s counsel’s conduct and strategic choices are a
source of great concern to this Court, the difficult question
7
1
that this Court faces is whether it should punish plaintiff for
2
her counsel’s carelessness.
3
should not be denied a chance to pursue her claims based on her
4
counsel’s errors. 2
5
The answer surely is no.
This case is still at an early stage.
Hodges
Although Hodges filed
6
suit in February 2017, nearly eleven months after receiving her
7
Notice of Right to Sue, she did not serve In Shape until late May
8
2017.
9
Timely removal occurred in June, followed by In Shape’s Motion to
See Compl.; Judicial Req. Notice, Ex. A, ECF No. 7-2.
10
Dismiss a week later.
11
her complaint within a month of removal, prior to the start of
12
discovery.
13
(9th Cir. 1990) (“A second factor in determining whether the
14
district court properly denied the motion for leave to amend is
15
whether appellants unduly delayed in filing their motion.”
16
(emphasis added)); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
17
465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying leave to amend twelve
18
months into litigation); Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th
19
Cir. 1994) (denying leave to amend two months before trial after
20
completion of “voluminous and protracted discovery”).
21
See ECF Nos. 2, 7.
Hodges moved to amend
See Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388
In Shape has not cited any cases where conduct like Hodges’s
22
counsel’s has qualified as bad faith, resulting in denial of
23
leave to amend.
While Hodges’s counsel’s “mistake” explanation
24
2
25
26
27
28
Were Hodges to be denied relief based on her counsel’s errors,
she would not be entirely without a remedy. Her remedy would,
instead, lie in a claim against her counsel for malpractice. Cf.
Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.
2006) (noting, in the context of Rule 60(b)(1), that “an
innocent, albeit careless or negligent, attorney mistake” is
“more appropriately addressed through malpractice claims.”).
8
1
is not credible, this conduct does not rise to the level of bad
2
faith.
3
it would suffer undue prejudice from amendment.
4
708 F.3d at 1117 (noting that “[c]ourts may decline to grant
5
leave to amend only if there is strong evidence” of the Foman
6
factors); Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048,
7
1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he consideration of prejudice to the
8
opposing party carries the greatest weight.”).
9
15(a) instructs courts to “liberally” grant amendment, the Court
Further, In Shape has not provided strong evidence that
See Sonoma Cty.,
Because Rule
10
finds that allowing Hodges to amend her pleading for the first
11
time is in the interest of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a);
12
Eminence, 316 F.3d at 1051 (directing that leave to amend shall
13
be given “with extreme liberality.”)
14
Hodges is granted leave to amend her complaint to add state
15
law FEHA claims.
16
Proposed Am. Compl., ECF No. 9-3, includes a caption that
17
improperly identifies the San Joaquin County Superior Court,
18
instead of the present court, the Court will grant Hodges ten
19
(10) days in which to file a first amended complaint that
20
includes her state law claims.
21
3.
Because her current proposed amended complaint,
The Court Takes Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
Under Submission
22
23
Hodges’s counsel argues that amending the complaint to
24
substitute state law claims for federal claims revokes the basis
25
for removal.
26
above, jurisdiction is based on the pleadings at the time of
27
removal, not after post-removal amendment.
28
F.3d at 1213.
ECF No 9, p. 5.
This is incorrect.
As referenced
Sparta Surgical, 159
The Court will retain jurisdiction over Hodges’s
9
1
state law claims unless it chooses to dismiss or remand them.
2
Because Hodges has not yet filed a proper amended
3
complaint, the Court takes her Motion to Remand under
4
submission.
5
Motion to Dismiss, Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7, will be vacated as
6
moot.
7
amended complaint within twenty (20) days after filing, or
8
alternatively, the parties may stipulate to dismissal of the two
9
federal claims with prejudice and stipulate to remand the state
10
11
Once Hodges files her amended complaint, In Shape’s
In Shape may either file a responsive pleading to the
law claims.
If In Shape elects to file a motion to dismiss the federal
12
claims, which will likely be granted, the Court will in all
13
likelihood refuse to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the
14
remaining state law claims and remand the case to state court.
15
The parties can, of course, expedite this inevitable outcome by
16
stipulation.
17
18
19
III.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff
20
leave to amend her complaint to include state law FEHA claims.
21
Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of
22
this order’s filing.
23
the parties may file a stipulation within twenty (20) days of the
24
amended complaint’s filing consistent with the Court’s
25
recommendation.
26
///
27
///
28
Defendant may file a responsive pleading or
///
10
1
2
The Court takes Plaintiff’s motion to remand under
submission.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: October 2, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?