YANSICK v. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL-HAMILTON et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/29/2018. (tf, )

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

JAMES YANSICK,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action
No. 17-7697 (JBS/KMW)

ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL-HAMILTON, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for
remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 [Docket Item 7], which will
be granted for the following reasons:
1.

The relevant chronology is straight-forward. On or

about July 12, 2017, Plaintiff initiated the instant action by
filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Burlington County under Docket No. BUR-L-1578-17. [Docket Item 1
at ¶ 1 and Ex. A.] Thereafter, on or about September 7, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which he subsequently
served upon the Defendants, Robert Wood Johnson University
Hospital-Hamilton, et al. [Id. at ¶¶ 1-3.] In the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged age discrimination under the
Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 631,
et seq., and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A.
§§ 34:19-1, et seq. [Id. at ¶¶ 4-6 and Ex. A.] On September 29,

2017, Defendants removed the action to this Court based on
federal question jurisdiction. [Docket Items 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3.]
2.

Shortly after removal to this Court, Plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his Federal Age
Discrimination and Employment Act claim [Docket Item 6], and
simultaneously filed this motion seeking remand of the action to
state court due to his dismissal of federal claims. [Docket
Items 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4.] Plaintiff does not contend that
removal was improper or defective. [Id.] Rather, Plaintiff
correctly points out that his withdrawal of the sole federal
claims upon which removal was based make remand of all remaining
state law claims appropriate. [Id.]
3.

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

remaining claims arising at state law, since the parties are
non-diverse. While the Court could conceivably exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining related claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), it will not do so since there has
been essentially no active litigation in this forum, other than
this remand motion and the cancellation of the initial
scheduling conference pending adjudication of this remand
motion.
4.

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides in relevant

part: “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction [in a removed
2

case], the case shall be remanded.” This being the present
situation, Plaintiff’s motion for remand will be granted.
5.

Notwithstanding the correctness of Plaintiff’s

position on remand, Defendants seek imposition of defense fees
and costs associated with removal, arguing that Plaintiff has
manipulated the pleadings in an unfair manner. [Docket Item 10
at 3.] Defendants invoke Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill for the
proposition that a “court can consider whether the plaintiff has
engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to
remand a case,” additionally considering “principles of economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.” 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988).
6.

While there are situations where such manipulations

are both unfounded and unfair, this case does not present one of
them. Here, Plaintiff chose to initiate the case in the Superior
Court of New Jersey and added the federal claim for age
discrimination. Defendants properly removed the case.
Defendants’ removal, standing alone, seems to have achieved a
victory for Defendants on the federal claim which Plaintiff then
withdrew with prejudice. Under these circumstances, the
consideration for Defendants’ efforts in removing the case to
federal court is the dismissal of what may have been a
substantial federal claim, with prejudice. Each side should bear
its own costs and fees.

3

7.

The accommodating Order for Remand will be entered

June 29, 2018
Date

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

4