Schneider et al v. State of California et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting 37 Motion to Remand (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-04987 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND

CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants. /

Plaintiffs move to remand this removed action to state court on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants oppose the motion.1 Having considered all of the papers

filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are employees at San Quentin State Prison. In

September, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a suit against Defendants in Marin County superior court alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and other claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In October, 2008, Defendants

removed the case to federal court on two grounds: (1) Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim raised a federal question and (2) Defendant

Plaintiffs did not file a reply.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Robert Sillen, as a former federal receiver, could not be sued in state court against his will under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) for acts done within the scope of his federal employment.2 On June 1, 2009,

the parties attempted to resolve the case through Early Neutral Evaluation. Those attempts failed and on September 30, 2009,

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint omitting the § 1983 claims and Robert Sillen as a defendant. LEGAL STANDARD Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that if, at any time before judgment, it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from state court, the case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On a motion to

remand, the scope of the removal statute must be strictly construed. 1992). See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

"The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Id. (internal citation omitted). Courts

should resolve doubts as to removability in favor of remanding the case to state court. Id. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court must remand their case to state court because Robert Sillen is no longer a defendant and there is no longer a federal question in their complaint. However, as Defendants point out, federal

Section 1442(a)(1) states that when "any officer . . . of the United States or of any agency thereof, [is] sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office" in state court, the officer may remove the civil action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) 2

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

jurisdiction is analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time of removal. Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. A "plaintiff

Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998).

may not compel remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which removal was based." Id. Federal

courts have power to hear claims that would not be independently removable even after the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped from the proceedings. Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d Whether a district court retains

203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991).

jurisdiction and adjudicates the pendent claims or remands them to state court is left to the district court's discretion. Id. In

exercising its discretion, a federal court should consider the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). When

federal law claims drop out of a lawsuit in its early stages and only state law claims remain, the weighing of these factors indicates that a federal court should decline to exercise jurisdiction. Id.

Here, Plaintiffs' suit is in its early stages and contains state law claims only. Judicial economy, convenience, fairness and

comity counsel that a state court hear Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants argue that the Court should retain jurisdiction because they have litigated in this forum in good faith and Plaintiffs have engaged in manipulative tactics by amending their complaint to avoid federal jurisdiction. A federal court may consider whether a

plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to remand a case. Id. at 356. However, the fact that

Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove their federal claims 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

does not qualify as a manipulative tactic that warrants the Court retaining jurisdiction over the suit. A plaintiff, as "master of

the complaint," may choose to have the cause heard in state court by eschewing claims based on federal law. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1987). Caterpillar Inc. v.

Besides the amendment of

the complaint, Defendants present no other evidence that Plaintiffs have engaged in manipulative tactics or that remanding the case to state court would not serve the basic values of fairness, comity, convenience and judicial economy. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court. The Clerk shall remand the

case to the superior court for Marin County. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/6/09

CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

4