Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02210/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 10cv2210-BTM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA TRAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 10cv2210-BTM (NLS)

ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND

v. COMPLAINT AND TO REMAND

NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, for leave to file a first amended

complaint to remove a cause of action containing allegations under Title VII. Plaintiff also

requests that the Court remand this action back to the Superior Court for the County of San

Diego. Defendants did not file an opposition to this motion.

Plaintiff originally filed an action in state court, bringing claims for sexual harassment

under the FEHA, sexual harassment under Title VII, termination in violation of public policy,

and retaliation. Defendants removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and (c), alleging that

Plaintiff’s Title VII claim confers federal question jurisdiction upon this Court. 

Under Rule 15(a), courts are to apply the policy of free amendment of pleadings with

extreme liberality. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

When determining whether to grant leave to amend, a court should consider the following

factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the

opposing party. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.

2003).

Case 3:10-cv-02210-BTM-NLS Document 7 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 10cv2210-BTM (NLS)

All of these factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff leave to amend. This case is

in its early stages, as there has been no discovery or substantive motions. Because the

Court has not issued any rulings, Plaintiff cannot be said to be forum shopping. Finally, with

Plaintiff’s voluntarily removing a claim, Defendants are presumably benefitted, rather than

prejudiced. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. The first

amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion is deemed filed as of the date of the entry

of this order. 

Having dismissed the Title VII claims, the only claims that remain are brought under

state law. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“In the usual case in which

all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered

under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity

-- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”).

“The state court more frequently handles issues involving state anti-discrimination law” and

thus would be in a better position to address state claims. Hummel v. Smith, No.

C09-1268RSL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14052, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2010).

Accordingly, once the first amended complaint is filed, this action is REMANDED to the

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02210-BTM-NLS Document 7 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 2