Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06519/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EFREN TORRES, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SKYTREK AVIATION FUEL, INC. )

dba SKYTREK AVIATION, et.al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04cv6519 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND 

FOR REMAND

(Document 20)

Plaintiff Efren Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion for leave to amend the

complaint and for remand to Stanislaus Superior Court on February 15, 2006. Defendants do not

oppose the motion and the Court therefore determined the matter was appropriate for submission

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially filed this action in the Stanislaus Superior Court and on November 9,

2004, Defendants removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a). The complaint

alleges six claims against Defendants. The first three claims allege violations of the California

Fair Employment and Housing Act, set forth in California Government Code §§ 12900 et.seq. 

The remaining three claims are based upon the alleged failure of Defendants to pay Plaintiff

overtime, pursuant to both federal and state laws. The sole federal cause of action is the fifth

claim, which arises under and is based upon an alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

Case 1:04-cv-06519-OWW -DLB Document 29 Filed 04/07/06 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

of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et. seq. 

DISCUSSION

By way of the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint by dismissing

the sole federal cause of action and requests that the action be remanded to the Stanislaus County

Superior Court. 

Defendants filed their response on March 16, 2006, indicating that they do not contest

Plaintiff’s right to amend his complaint by dismissing the sole federal cause of action or his

request to remand the action to state court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

complaint is GRANTED.

Having dismissed the sole federal cause of action, Plaintiff is left with a complaint that

consists of solely state law claims. 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3) allows the district court to

decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original

jurisdiction. Thus, given Plaintiff’s request to remand and Defendants’ non-opposition,

Plaintiff’s request to remand the action is GRANTED. 

Insofar as Defendants question Plaintiff’s suggestion that no further discovery will be

necessary on remand, this Court is unable to control the course of discovery upon remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06519-OWW -DLB Document 29 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2