Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01131/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LEILANI NEWMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANFORD HEALTH CARE,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01131-BLF 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT

At the Case Management Conference held October 27, 2016, the Court sua sponte raised 

the question of whether it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over this case given that the 

claim over which it had original jurisdiction has been dismissed and the only remaining claims are 

asserted under state law. For the reasons discussed below, the Court in the exercise of its 

discretion declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and therefore 

REMANDS this case to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Plaintiff Leilani Newman filed this action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on 

January 29, 2016, asserting state law claims against her former employer, Stanford Health Care, 

for whom she worked as a Certified Nurse’s Aide from January 2001 to May 2015. See Compl., 

Exh. B to Not. of Removal, ECF 1. Count I for “Wrongful Termination of Employment” alleged 

that Newman and Stanford entered into an implied in fact contract requiring good cause to 

terminate, and that Stanford terminated Newman without good cause. Compl. ¶¶ 7-15. Stanford 

removed the action to federal district court on the ground that Newman had alleged claims that 

were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

185(a). See Not. of Removal, ECF 1.

Stanford subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting among other things that Newman’s claim for breach of contract was 

Case 5:16-cv-01131-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

preempted by the LMRA. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 14. In response, Newman conceded 

Stanford’s preemption argument and filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint. Pursuant to 

Court order, Newman filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on July 27, 2016. See

FAC, ECF 28. The FAC, which omits the contract claim that constituted the basis for removal, 

asserts claims against Stanford and Pauline Regner, Newman’s former supervisor, for: (1) tortious 

termination of employment, (2) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 1278.5, (3) libel, 

and (4) intentional interference with contract. Id. Newman subsequently dismissed all claims 

against Regner and the third and fourth claims, leaving only the first and second claims against 

Stanford for disposition. See Order on Stipulation for Dismissal of Pauline Regner, Count III, and 

Count IV of the First Amended Complaint, Without Prejudice, ECF 34.

At the Case Management Conference held on October 27, 2016, the Court confirmed with 

counsel for both parties that the two remaining claims are asserted exclusively under state law and 

do not implicate the LMRA or any other federal question. “A district court ‘may decline to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original 

jurisdiction.’” Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “‘[I]n 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.”” Id. (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 

343, 350 n. 7 (1988)). Counsel did not articulate any reason why the remaining state law claims 

should be litigated in federal court, and the Court perceives none. The case is at an early stage in 

the proceedings, this Court has not devoted significant resources to it, and remand will not impair 

either party’s rights. The Court in the exercise of its discretion therefore declines to retain 

supplemental jurisdiction over Newman’s state law claims. 

Accordingly, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 

Dated: October 28, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01131-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 2