Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00677/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00677-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LTD,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 10-00677 JSW

No. C 10-04991 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND; DISMISSING CASE;

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED

CASE; AND SUA

SPONTE REMANDING RELATED

MATTER TO STATE COURT

Now before the Court is the motion to amend filed by Plaintiff Bryan Thompson and the

motion to consolidate related matters filed by Defendant APM Terminals Pacific Ltd. The

motion seeks to eliminate a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The

Court finds that this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument and accordingly

VACATES the hearing date of January 21, 2011. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having carefully

reviewed the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend; DISMISS

this matter; DENIES as moot the motion to consolidate the related matter (case no. 10-4991

JSW); and sua sponte REMANDING the related matter to state court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 22, 2006 through December 31,

2009. On behalf of himself and other current or former employees, he makes claims for

Case 3:10-cv-00677-JSW Document 76 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

overtime compensation, failure to itemize wage statements, waiting time penalties, liquidated

damages, violations of California’s unfair competition law, and a range of civil penalties. 

In its answer to the amended complaint, Defendant asserted numerous affirmative

defenses and Plaintiff moved to dismiss certain of the defenses. In its order denying Plaintiff’s

second motion to strike , the Court noted that Plaintiff’s claim under the California Labor Code

Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), when filed in federal court as a class action, would

require compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (See Order dated August 26, 2010

at 3 (citing Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct 1431, 1437

(2010); see also Benitez v. Wilbur, 2009 WL 498085, *9-10 (Feb. 26, 2009))). 

In response, Plaintiff reconsidered whether to continue to pursue his PAGA claim and,

in a series of confused and contorted procedural maneuvers and fumbles, failed to dismiss the

claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. Thereafter ensued a veritable onslaught or

procedural posturing and manipulation from both parties. The procedural history of this and the

related matter (10-4991 JSW) is well-known to the parties and hardly worth the effort of

repeating. Regardless, now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend his original

complaint to omit the federal claim, a related case removed from state court by Defendant, a

motion to consolidate the related actions, as well as a partially-briefed motion to remand the

related action and a motion for partial summary judgment, a motion to continue or deny the

motion for partial summary judgment, and an outstanding discovery dispute.

The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the remainder of this order. 

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint.

1. Legal Standard on Motion to Amend.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a plaintiff to amend their complaint, after

a responsive pleading has been served, by leave of court or by consent of the adverse party. 

Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given.” See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). 

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[r]ule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings

should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.

Case 3:10-cv-00677-JSW Document 76 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

1981). Four factors are considered to determine whether a motion for leave to file an amended

complaint should be granted: bad faith; undue delay; prejudice to the opposing party; and

futility of amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). 

While these “factors are usually used as criteria to determine the propriety of a motion for leave

to amend ... the crucial factor is the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.” Howey v. United

States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973). 

2. Plaintiff May Amend to Eliminate Federal Claim.

Regardless of the tortured and convoluted procedural process by which the parties have

arrived at this place, the Court finds that Plaintiff may amend his complaint to allege only those

causes of action he intends to pursue. There is no evidence of bad faith, delay or futility. The

only prejudice is the wasted expenditure of attorneys’ fees, but, as the Court finds it lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over this and finds the related case appropriate for remand to state

court, the prejudice of paying attorneys’ fees shall be borne equally by both parties and no

award of fees is appropriate.

B. Removal Jurisdiction, Sua Sponte Remand of Related Action and Moot Motions.

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United

States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation

omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 

See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action

originally filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the district court could

have exercised jurisdiction over such action if initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A district court must remand the case if

it appears before final judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c). Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal

is on the party seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.

2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, a court must

Case 3:10-cv-00677-JSW Document 76 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 In addition, the letter brief regarding a discovery dispute, the motion to strike the

letter brief, the partially-briefed motion to remand and the motion for partial summary

judgment are all MOOT. Any substantive dispute that remains upon dismissal and remand

shall be resolved by the Superior Court.

4

construe the removal statute strictly and reject jurisdiction if there is any doubt regarding

whether removal was proper. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right

of removal in the first instance.”) 

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘wellpleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 382, 392 (1987). The wellpleaded complaint rule recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or

she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the

well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief

necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd.,

463 U.S. at 27-28. 

District courts have inherent discretion to remand cases to state court sua sponte where

the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or where there is a procedural defect in the removal

process. Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the Court finds that it lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the related action in this matter (10-4991 JSW), which is

essentially the same case re-filed in state court and then removed by Defendant. Accordingly,

the Court REMANDS that related action to the Superior Court of the State of California, in

the County of Alameda, thus rendering Defendant’s current motion for consolidation moot.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend to

remove the FLSA claim in this action; DISMISSES the complaint for lack of federal

jurisdiction, and REMANDS the related case (10-4991 JSW) to state court to proceed on the

merits. The amount of waste generated by both counsel in this matter shall be shared equally,

with no award of attorneys’ fees to either side. Ostensibly, the substantive work generated thus

Case 3:10-cv-00677-JSW Document 76 Filed 01/06/11 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

far can be restructured and re-filed in state court. Counsel and the parties are exhorted to spend

their time and resources more judiciously in the resolution of the actual controversy before the

Superior Court of Alameda.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2011 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00677-JSW Document 76 Filed 01/06/11 Page 5 of 5