Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04860/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04860-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04860-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LETICIA SAUCEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA’S SECRET STORES, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04860-EJD 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff Leticia Saucedo (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in June, 2013, for wrongful 

termination, disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against 

Defendants Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Retail Store Operations, Inc., Amy Germain, and 

Shawn Thompson (collectively, “Defendants”) in Santa Clara County Superior Court. See Dkt. 

No. 1. Defendants removed the action to this court in October, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 claiming federal jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question because Plaintiff stated a 

claim arising under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. See

id., Notice of Removal at ¶ 5. 

In May 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and in August 2015, 

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. See Dkt. Nos. 35, 45. In her opposition brief, Plaintiff states 

that she withdraws her claim under the FMLA. See Dkt. No. 45 at 1. On that basis, the FMLA 

claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), if at any time before final judgment the district court 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the action to state court. Here, 

the sole basis for federal jurisdiction was Plaintiff’s FMLA claim. Since that claim has been 

Case 5:13-cv-04860-EJD Document 58 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-04860-EJD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dismissed, the basis for jurisdiction cited in the Notice of Removal no longer exists. See

Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The party seeking 

the federal forum bears the burden of establishing that the statutory requirements of federal 

jurisdiction have been met.”). Without a federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Acri 

v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

Accordingly, the court concludes that it now lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action and, for that reason, will remand this case to state court.

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk shall remand this case to Santa Clara County Superior 

Court and close the file. All other matters are TERMINATED and VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015 

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04860-EJD Document 58 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 2