Abels v. GE Homeland Protection Inc et al

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Remand. The Court remands Plaintiff's state law claims and Stays this action. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ALISON M. ABELS,
5

Plaintiff,
6

vs.

Case No.: C-11-5313-YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR REMAND

7

GE HOMELAND PROTECTION INC. et al.,
8

Defendants.
9
10

Defendants removed this wrongful termination action from the Alameda County Superior
11

Court pursuant to the Court’s Federal Question Jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff seeks to recover
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

disability benefits owing under an ERISA administered benefits plan. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges
13

six causes of action: (1) Discrimination on the basis of Disability, Age, Race, Gender, and Sexual
14

Orientation under Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900 et seq.; (2) Violation of the California Medical
15

Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56.05(g); (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4)
16

Violation of California Labor Code § 201(c); (5) Wrongful Termination; and (6) Violation of ERISA.
17

Plaintiff has moved to remand back to Superior Court on the basis that her ERISA claim is
18

“the last and least of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief for damages in this action” and because “the loss of
19
20
21
22

benefits [w]as a consequence of the termination and not a motivating factor behind it.” Dkt. No. 8.
Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to
Remand.1 The Court REMANDS Plaintiff’s state law claims and STAYS this action.

23
24
25

DISCUSSION
A defendant may remove “any civil action” over which the district court has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Defendants removed this action alleging that Plaintiff’s claim for

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that
this motion, which has been noticed for hearing on April 24, 2012, is appropriate for decision without oral
argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for April 24, 2012.

1

benefits under an ERISA administered plan raises a Federal Question and Defendants removed

2

Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The

3

presence of one or more federal question claims in a plaintiff’s case makes the case one which a

4

district court has original jurisdiction. See Lee v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1002 (9th Cir.

5

2001). Here, this Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action, which alleges

6

entitlement to employee benefits under an ERISA administered benefits plan. Accordingly, because

7

there is federal jurisdiction over one claim, Plaintiff’s entire case is removable from state court.

8
9

Even where a case has been properly removed, a district court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the claim substantially predominates over the

Plaintiff seeks remand on the basis that her ERISA claim is “the last and least of Plaintiff’s Prayer for

12
Northern District of California

claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

11

United States District Court

10

Relief for damages in this action” and because “the loss of benefits [w]as a consequence of the

13

termination and not a motivating factor behind it.” Dkt. No. 8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s

14

characterization of the claims in this action.

15

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims for

16

wrongful termination because her state law claims “substantially predominate[] over the claim or

17

claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

18

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges in her Sixth Cause of Action that she did not receive all of the short term

19

disability payments for her period of disability and that she was not permitted to make certain 401k

20

contributions. However, before this Court can determine if Plaintiff is entitled to benefits under an

21

ERISA administered benefits plan based upon her wrongful termination, one or more Defendants

22

must be found liable for wrongful termination. The Court will respect Plaintiff’s choice of forum to

23

adjudicate these state law issues and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state

24

law claims. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion and REMAND her state

25

law claims. Additionally, because the need to determine Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits under an

26

ERISA administered plan is contingent upon Plaintiff prevailing on one or more of her state law

27

claims, to conserve judicial resources, the Court will STAY this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s

28

state law claims in state court.

2

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion

3

for Remand. The Court will remand Plaintiff’s state law claims, retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

4

ERISA claim, and stay this action.

5

The Motion to Remand is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims for: (1) Discrimination on the

6

basis of Disability, Age, Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation under Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900 et

7

seq.; (2) Violation of the California Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56.05(g); (3)

8

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Violation of California Labor Code § 201(c); and (5)

9

Wrongful Termination.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND Plaintiff’s First through Fifth Causes of Action to
the Alameda County Superior Court.
The Motion to Remand is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action, titled “Violation of
ERISA.”
This action is STAYED pending resolution of the state court proceedings. Within 60 days of

15

entry of a final judgment in the state court case, if no appeal is pending, the parties shall either move

16

to lift the Stay or for a dismissal of this action. If one or more parties files an appeal, the parties shall

17

notify the Court that an appeal is pending.

18
19

The Court VACATES all dates currently on calendar, including the Motion Hearing set for
April 24, 2012.

20

This Order Terminates Docket Number 8.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

April 10, 2012

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

3