Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05770/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-05770-EJD

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DECLINING TO 

RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

1

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

SARAH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECURITY INDUSTRY SPECIALISTS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-05770-EJD 

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; 

GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; 

DECLINING TO RULE ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 11

Plaintiff Sarah Thomas (“Plaintiff”) initiated this suit in state court asserting various 

employment discrimination claims arising under state law and the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”). On September 13, 2019, Defendant Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (“Defendant”) 

removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1. 

Plaintiff now moves to remand, asserting that removal was improper. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff 

essentially asserts that the Complaint only refers to the ADA to support Plaintiff’s claim under the 

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Id. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests 

leave to file a First Amended Complaint which only contains state law claims and not the ADA

and thereafter to remand the action. Id. Defendant moves to dismiss and to compel arbitration. 

Dkt. No. 8. For the reasons stated below, the Court orders Plaintiff’s ADA claim dismissed with 

prejudice, grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and declines to rule on Defendant’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In August of 2019, Plaintiff initiated suit in the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Santa Clara against her former employer, Defendant, and two former supervisors, 

Case 5:19-cv-05770-EJD Document 29 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05770-EJD

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DECLINING TO 

RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants William Duncan and Jesse Antonio. Dkt. No. 2. The Complaint alleged causes of 

action for gender discrimination; sexual harassment; retaliation; disability discrimination; 

violation of California Labor Code section 1102; “Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive 

Process”; and constructive discharge. Id. On September 13, 2019, Defendant timely removed on 

the basis of federal question jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action, entitled 

“Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Disability Discrimination Under FEHA.” 

Id. On September 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Dkt. 

No. 8. The next day, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Dkt. No. 11. Co-defendants William 

Duncan and Jesse Antonio have filed a Notice of Joinder and Joinder To Defendant’s (1) Notice of 

Removal and (2) Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration. Dkt. No. 27.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff first contends that the case was improperly removed because the sixth cause of 

action “is only based upon the ADA to the extent that California’s state disability laws (like the 

laws of many states) have embraced the ADA.” Pl.’s Motion To Remand at 6. The Court rejects 

Plaintiff’s argument because the Complaint alleges that “This [Sixth] Cause of Action is also 

brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.) 

which provides that employment discrimination is prohibited against ‘qualified individuals with 

disabilities.’” Compl. ¶ 72. Therefore, removal was proper. 

In the alternative, Plaintiff requests leave to file a First Amended Complaint which only 

references FEHA and not the ADA, and then to have the suit remanded. Pl.’s Motion to Remand 

at 4:17-18. In response, Defendant argues that post-removal events cannot deprive a federal court 

of jurisdiction. Def.’s Opp’n at 3. In doing so, Defendant misses the mark. The issue is not 

whether this Court has jurisdiction; the Court clearly does because the Complaint included a claim 

under the ADA, as discussed above. And Plaintiff cannot divest this Court of jurisdiction by 

having the federal claim dismissed post-removal. See e.g. Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of 

Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998), abrogated on other grounds by

Case 5:19-cv-05770-EJD Document 29 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05770-EJD

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DECLINING TO 

RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

3

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

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S.Ct. 1562 (2016) (“[A] plaintiff may 

not compel remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question upon which 

removal was based.”); Hill v. Rolleri, 615 F.2d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The general rule in 

diversity cases is that if the jurisdictional requisites are present when the action begins, subsequent 

events will not ordinarily defeat the district court's jurisdiction.”); Gillette v. Peerless Ins. Co., No.

13-3161 DDP, 2013 WL 3983872, at * 3 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2013) (“Plaintiff's post-removal 

stipulation to cap her recovery at $74,999.00 does not operate to divest the court of jurisdiction.”). 

The relevant inquiry is whether Plaintiff may be permitted to amend her Complaint to omit 

the federal cause of action, and if so, whether the Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise 

jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action and to remand the suit. Leave to amend 

a complaint is government by Rule 15, which provides that “the court should freely give leave 

when justice requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). In the absence of any specific objection by 

Defendant and in the interest of justice, the Court finds that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to 

eliminate any references to the ADA. For the sake of efficiency, the Court orders the ADA claim 

dismissed rather than having Plaintiff file an amended complaint.

With any potential basis for a federal ADA claim eliminated, the issue becomes whether 

the Court should, in its discretion, retain pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims

or remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has instructed 

that “a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, 

the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to 

exercise jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law claims.” 

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), citing Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 

U.S. 715, (1966). “When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in 

state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and 

only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction” and 

either dismiss the case without prejudice or remand the case to state court. Id. at 349-351. In

Case 5:19-cv-05770-EJD Document 29 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05770-EJD

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DECLINING TO 

RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

4

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

Carnegie, when the single federal claim was eliminated at an early stage of litigation, “the District 

Court had a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.” Id. at 351. Like 

Carnegie, the single federal claim in this case has been dismissed at an early stage of litigation. 

As such, this Court also has a “powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction”

over the instant action. Id. 

Defendant contends that the Court should not condone Plaintiff’s attempt to “manipulate”

the case back to state court. Def.’s Opp. at 4. In Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487 (9th 

Cir. 1995), a similar issue arose in another employment discrimination case. The union 

defendants removed to federal court on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Post 

removal, plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to remove any potential bases for a federal 

claim and moved to remand the remaining state law claims. Although the district court granted 

the motion to remand, the court held that the plaintiffs had engaged in improper, manipulative 

pleading practices and awarded fees to the defendants. The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that: 

A plaintiff is entitled to file both state and federal causes of action in 

state court. The defendant is entitled to remove. The plaintiff is 

entitled to settle certain claims or dismiss them with leave of the 

court. The district court has discretion to grant or deny remand. 

Those are the pieces that comprise plaintiffs’ allegedly manipulative 

pleading practices. We are not convinced that such practices were 

anything to be discouraged.

The district court reasoned that plaintiffs had been “manipulative” 

because: “If plaintiffs wished to avoid federal court, they should 

have dropped their federal claims before ever filing a complaint.” 

We disagree. Filing federal claims in state court is a legitimate 

tactical decision by the plaintiff: it is an offer to the defendant to 

litigate the federal claims in state court. The defendant is not 

obligated to remove; rather, he has the choice either to submit to 

state court resolution of his claims, or to assert his right to a federal 

forum. If the defendant rejects the plaintiff's offer to litigate in state 

court and removes the action, the plaintiff must then choose between 

federal claims and a state forum. Plaintiffs in this case chose the 

state forum. They dismissed their federal claims and moved for 

remand with all due speed after removal. There was nothing 

manipulative about that straight-forward tactical decision, and there 

would be little to be gained in judicial economy by forcing plaintiffs 

to abandon their federal causes of action before filing in state court.

Case 5:19-cv-05770-EJD Document 29 Filed 01/06/20 Page 4 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-05770-EJD

ORDER DISMISSING ADA CLAIM; GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND; DECLINING TO 

RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

5

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

Id. at 490-91. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Baddie applies with equal force to the instant 

action. Plaintiff has not engaged in any manipulative pleading practices. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, all references to the ADA are stricken and the sixth cause 

of action for violation of the ADA is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is 

GRANTED. The matter is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, 

County of Santa Clara. Because the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining 

state law claims, the Court will not rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel 

arbitration. Defendant’s motion is terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-05770-EJD Document 29 Filed 01/06/20 Page 5 of 5