Brockington v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 34 Motion to Remand. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United 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 v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a National Banking Association, NDEX WEST, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants. On July 31, 2009, the court heard plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. opposes the motion. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties and the arguments of counsel, and for good cause appearing, the court grants plaintiffs' motion to remand. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint abandoned all federal causes of action and plaintiff therefor sought an order remanding the action to Superior Court. In the parties' initial briefing, neither side addressed whether the court had diversity jurisdiction over this action and the court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint which added a non-diverse party.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND--No. C-08-05795 RMW TER

E-FILED on 8/4/09

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

KIMBERLY A. BROCKINGTON, also known as KIMBERLY A. SCHATZ, and LALLY BROCKINGTON, Plaintiffs,

No. C-08-05795 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND [Re Docket No. 34]

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

Accordingly, the under the present operative pleading, there is no federal question presented and the parties are not diverse. While it appears that the new defendants were added in large part for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction, it also appears that plaintiff may have viable claims against them arising out of the same transaction, facts and circumstances. The action was properly removed by defendants based on the federal question thenpresented by the pleadings. Thus, the court has the discretion to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear the remaining state law claims, even though the complaint, as presently framed, could not have been brought in federal court. The court also has discretion, however, to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to hear such claims. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3); Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2006). This case is still in its early stages, the pleadings are not yet closed, and the claims to be litigated are all state law claims. Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion and remand this action to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DATED:

8/4/09

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND--No. C-08-05795 RMW TER 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

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiffs: John Stuart Perkins Counsel for Defendants: John M. Sorich S. Christopher Yoo jsorich@adornocom c [e-mail] j [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated:

8/4/09

TER Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND--No. C-08-05795 RMW TER 3