KIKIMEN v. ATLANTICARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/19/2017. (tf, )

Case 1:16-cv-08382-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 325

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Josephine Kikimen,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 1:16-cv-08382(JBS/AMD)

v.
Atlanticare Regional Medical
Center, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Josephine
Kikimen’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) unopposed motion to remand
this action to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic
County. [Docket Item 9.] For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Court finds as follows:
1.

On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in

Atlantic County Superior Court against Atlanticare Regional
Medical Center, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) alleging that she
was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant after working for the
Defendant for thirty-seven years as a Registered Nurse and
Clinical Documentation Analyst. Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks
relief in the form of monetary damages under several causes of
action, including state-law causes of action (Counts One through
Four) and federal causes of action (Count Three).
2.

On November 9, 2016, Defendant removed this action

from the Atlantic County Superior Court to this Court pursuant

Case 1:16-cv-08382-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 326

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1446 because the Complaint alleged a
violation of a federal statute, namely, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). [Docket Item 1.]
3.

On November 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice to

amend the complaint and remand to state court. [Docket Item 4.]
4.

On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to

amend her complaint to remove all federal claims, including the
alleged FLSA violations. Count 3, which had contained all
federal claims in this action, now consists of only state-law
based wage and hour violation claims. [Docket Item 5.]
5.

In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that remand is

appropriate on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction once the federal claims have been removed. [Docket
Item 9.] The Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed.
6.

The Court therefore recognizes that there are no

federal claims pending in this action. For this reason, the
exercise of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is
no longer appropriate. See Shaffer v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of
Albert Gallatin Area Sch. Dist., 730 F.2d 910, 912 (3d Cir.
1984) (holding that “pendent jurisdiction should be declined
where the federal claims are no longer viable, absent
extraordinary circumstances”). Further, there is no jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, since
Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of New Jersey.

Case 1:16-cv-08382-JBS-AMD Document 11 Filed 06/19/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 327

7.

Plaintiff moves, on this basis, to remand the action

to Atlantic County Superior Court. The Court previously
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent
state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline
jurisdiction over remaining claims after all federal claims have
been deleted from the action. The Third Circuit has held that
where the federal claims that gave the basis for original
jurisdiction are dismissed a “district court must decline to
decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of
judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties
provide an affirmative justification for doing so”. Hedges v.
Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Borough of W.
Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir. 1995)). As
Plaintiff’s claims over which the court had original
jurisdiction have all been dismissed, as there is no apparent
justification for retaining jurisdiction, and as Plaintiff’s
motion to remand is unopposed by the removing party, the Court
will grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
8.

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted. The

accompanying Order will be entered.

June 19, 2017
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge