Racelis v. East Bay Integrated Care, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 12 Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
PATRICIA RACELIS,
12
Plaintiff,

No. C 14-1301 PJH

13
v.
14
15

EAST BAY INTEGRATED CARE, INC.,
dba HOSPICE OF THE EAST BAY,

16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

Defendant.
_______________________________/

17
18

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Patricia Racelis for an order remanding the

19

above-entitled action to the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. Having

20

read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

21

authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.

22

This is an employment case. Plaintiff Patricia Racelis asserts wage and hour claims,

23

and claims of breach of contract, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate,

24

retaliation, wrongful termination, and unlawful business practices, against defendant East

25

Bay Integrated Care, Inc., d/b/a Hospice of the East Bay ("East Bay").

26

The original complaint was filed on February 11, 2014, in Contra Costa Superior

27

Court. All 16 causes of action alleged in the complaint were based entirely on state law,

28

with the exception of the third cause of action for failure to pay overtime in violation of the

1

Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the eleventh cause of action for failure to provide

2

reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the

3

twelfth cause of action for retaliation and discrimination in violation of the ADA, and the

4

portion of the thirteenth cause of action alleging retaliation and interference in violation of

5

the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").

6

On March 20, 2014, East Bay filed a notice of removal, alleging federal question

7

jurisdiction. That same day, East Bay filed an answer to the removed complaint. In early

8

April 2014, in an exchange of emails, plaintiff's counsel proposed, and East Bay's counsel

9

agreed, that the parties would stipulate to a dismissal of the federal claims. Plaintiff's
counsel also proposed that they stipulate to remand the case, but East Bay's counsel did

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

not agree.

12

On April 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a stipulation to dismiss the federal claims (and to

13

amend the complaint accordingly), and proposed order. The court has signed the

14

proposed order, which will be filed by the court concurrently with the filing of this order.

15

Also on April 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for approval of the stipulated dismissal

16

of the federal claims, and a motion to remand. Plaintiff contends that the dismissal of the

17

federal claims should be treated as a motion for leave to amend, and that the case should

18

be remanded because in the absence of the federal claims, the court lacks subject matter

19

jurisdiction. Plaintiff also asserts that where federal claims have dropped out of the lawsuit

20

in its early stages, and only state law claims remain, it may be an abuse of discretion for

21

the district court to retain the case.

22

East Bay opposes the motion, asserting that subject matter jurisdiction in a removed

23

case is determined as of the time of removal, and that because the court had subject

24

matter jurisdiction here at the time of removal due to the presence of the federal claims, the

25

court should not remand the case. East Bay also argues that the "balance of factors"

26

favors retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims, and also asserts that plaintiff is

27

attempting to forum-shop or "manipulate the forum."

28

East Bay is correct that subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the complaint
2

1

as of the time of removal, and is unaffected by subsequent amendments. See Sparta

2

Surgical Corp. v. National Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

In addition, however, while it is true that the district court has discretion to retain jurisdiction

4

over state law claims after the dismissal of federal causes of action that provided the basis

5

for federal question jurisdiction, see Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th

6

Cir. 2001), it is also true that the court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline

7

to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim if
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim
substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district
court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances,
there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

13

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2001) (the federal

14

rules make clear that the district court has "discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction on

15

the state law claims”). As the Supreme Court stated in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383

16

U.S. 715 (1966), “if it appears that the state issues substantially predominate, whether in

17

terms of proof, of the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the

18

remedy sought, the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution

19

to state tribunals.” Id. at 726-27.

20

The decision to retain jurisdiction or to remand depends on "what will best

21

accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Carnegie-

22

Mellon Univ. V. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988); see also Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726-27.

23

Remand is particularly appropriate where the case is in the early stage of litigation.

24

Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 351.

25

In this case, nothing has occurred apart from the filing of the complaint, the filing of

26

the notice of removal, the filing of the answer, and the filing of the present motion. The

27

initial case management conference is set for June 18, 2014. East Bay provides no viable

28

explanation as to why the court should retain jurisdiction over a case in which the plaintiff
3

1

asserts 13 state law causes of action, and no discovery or substantive motion practice has

2

occurred. Accordingly, the court finds that the case must be REMANDED to the Contra

3

Costa Superior Court. The date for the hearing on the motion, previously set for June 4,

4

2014, is VACATED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: May 27, 2014

8

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4