Divincent v. Divincent et al
Filing
54
ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 49 Motion to Remand (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
MICHAEL DIVINCENT,
No. C13-3360 TEH
5
Plaintiff,
6
7
v.
8
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND
ROBERT DIVINCENT, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Pursuant to
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
13
Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and now VACATES
14
the December 9, 2013 hearing. After carefully considering the parties’ written arguments,
15
Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below.
16
17
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2013, Defendants E-Trade Brokerage Services Inc., E-Trade Financial
18
19
Corporation, Inc., and E-Trade Financial Corporate Services, Inc., (collectively, “E-
20
Trade”) removed this case from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra
21
Costa. Defendants then moved to dismiss the case. On August 15, 2013, Plaintiff Michael
22
DiVincent moved for leave to amend his complaint and to remand the case back to state
23
court.
24
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend because his motion was within the 21-
25
day period for amendment as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
26
Sep. 24, 2013 Order at 2. The Court also required the parties to confer on the remand
27
issue, and noted that it was “not inclined to maintain jurisdiction over a case that includes
28
1
1
no federal questions even if removal were initially proper based on the original complaint.”
2
Id.
3
Plaintiff timely filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which references no
4
federal statutes or regulations, and states no federal causes of action. After the parties
5
failed to reach an agreement on whether remand was appropriate, Plaintiff moved to
6
remand. Defendants Dean DiVincent, Robert DiVincent, and David Gardner submitted
7
statements of non-opposition. E-Trade, however, opposes the motion and requests that the
8
Court instead stay all proceedings with respect to E-Trade, and compel arbitration.
9
10
DISCUSSION
Upon removal of a case to federal court, a district court has discretion to remand a
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
case once federal claims are eliminated. Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000
13
(9th Cir. 1997). In determining whether to remand, “the balance of factors to be
14
considered” are “judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon
15
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). A court may also consider “whether the
16
plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics” in order to inappropriately secure a
17
particular forum. Id. The Supreme Court has noted that when all federal claims are
18
eliminated early on, a district court has “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to
19
exercise jurisdiction.” Id. at 350-51.
20
Here, the first four factors are either neutral or tip slightly in favor of remand. The
21
Court has yet to delve into the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint; thus, there would be no
22
duplication of efforts or resulting waste of judicial resources in remanding this action back
23
to state court. As neither the Contra Costa Superior Court nor this Court appear more
24
convenient to the parties, the Court finds the convenience factor neutral, along with
25
fairness – which no party has argued weighs in their favor. With respect to comity, the
26
FAC includes only state law causes of action and makes no mention of federal law.
27
Comity thus supports remand.
28
2
1
E-Trade’s primary argument is that Plaintiff’s elimination of all references to
2
federal law in the FAC was manipulative, and done “precisely to avoid arbitration,” as
3
demanded by the parties’ agreement. E-Trade Opp. at 1-2. The Court disagrees, finding
4
that a plaintiff’s decision of where to file suit is a legitimate strategic decision. Faced with
5
removal, a plaintiff has the choice whether to retain federal claims or pursue his state
6
forum of choice. Baddie v. Berkeley Farms Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995). Here,
7
Plaintiff chose to pursue his action in state court, and eliminated all references to federal
8
law. “There [is] nothing manipulative about that straight-forward tactical decision.” Id.
9
As Plaintiff is the “master of the complaint,” he may “avoid federal jurisdiction by
exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
11
The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s actions an effort at manipulative forum shopping.
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Finally, although E-Trade argues that remand would contravene a Ninth Circuit
13
mandate to ensure that private arbitrations are enforced, an order remanding this case in no
14
way prevents E-Trade from pursuing arbitration in state court. This Court has yet to rule
15
on the arbitration issue, therefore parties would not have to “re-litigate the exact same
16
issues” again, as E-Trade argues – rather they would be litigating them for the first time,
17
but in state court rather than before this Court.
18
19
20
CONCLUSION
With good cause appearing, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS
21
Plaintiff’s motion to remand. This matter is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of
22
California for the County of Contra Costa. The Clerk shall close the file.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
Dated: 12/02/13
_ ________ ____________
_____
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
28
3
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?