Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01529/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01529-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

RONALD JOHN HUNDENSKI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

MICHAEL CARLIN, JOHN CRETAN,

MICHAEL DEBELLIS, THERESE

MADDEN, and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01529 WHA

ORDER (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND, (2) DECLINING TO

RULE ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS,

(3) VACATING BOTH HEARINGS

AND (4) FINDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE

HEARING MOOT

INTRODUCTION

In this wrongful-termination action alleging age discrimination, plaintiff moves to

remand the case back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants have also

moved to dismiss various claims for relief on the basis that plaintiff cannot state causes of

action under contract law as a public employee. This order DECLINES TO RULE on defendants’

motion to dismiss and REMANDS the case.

STATEMENT

This employment-discrimination action was removed from San Francisco County

Superior Court on April 14, 2005. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged (1) breach of contract;

(2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) age discrimination in violation of

the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code § 12940(a) et.

seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 et. seq.;

Case 3:05-cv-01529-WHA Document 19 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 3
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 *

 Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) provides that motions are to be noticed “on the motion calendar of the

assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion.”

2

(4) promissory estoppel; (5) fraud and deceit; and (6) wrongful termination in violation of

public policy. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss on April 15, 2005. 

On April 21, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint

alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) age

discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) promissory estoppel; and (5) wrongful termination in

violation of public policy. Because the amended complaint eliminated the ADEA claim,

plaintiff requested summary remand of the action back to state court. 

On April 28, 2005, the Court issued an order denying this request on the grounds that “a

plaintiff may not compel remand by amending a complaint to eliminate the federal question

upon which removal was based.” Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers,

Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). In addition, the order noted that defendants’ motion

to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of an amended pleading. On the same day,

defendants noticed a second motion to dismiss for hearing on June 2, 2005. Like their prior

motion, defendants argue that as a matter of law, civil service employees cannot state a cause of

action under contract law because the terms and conditions of public employment are set by

statute. On April 29, 2005, plaintiff noticed a motion for remand, but because the

already-scheduled hearing was less than 35 days away, another was scheduled for June 9,

2005.*

ANALYSIS

At the time of the removal, the complaint alleged a violation of the ADEA. Thus, a

federal question was raised. Although plaintiff argues that the amended complaint merely

clarified that there was no federal question in the original pleadings rather than eliminated the

federal question, this order disagrees and finds that removal was proper. That said, now that the

federal claim has been voluntarily dismissed and only state claims remain, it is within the

Court’s discretion either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent state claims or to

remand them to state court. Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 3:05-cv-01529-WHA Document 19 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 3
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

The previous order denied plaintiff’s request for summary remand to provide the parties

with the opportunity to brief the issue of whether the Court should exercise its discretion to

retain jurisdiction. Defendants’ opposition brief, however, “does not address Plaintiff’s attempt

to avoid federal jurisdiction by filing an amended complaint” (Opp. 1, fn.1). Instead, it focused

on whether removal of the original complaint was proper. But, that is not the issue. In deciding

whether to retain jurisdiction over pendent state claims, courts should consider the values of

judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to the states; “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.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S.

343, 350–51 (1988). Here, plaintiff has voluntarily amended the complaint at the earliest stages

of litigation. As only state claims remain, this order finds remand is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. This action is

immediately REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. 

Because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, this order

DECLINES TO RULE on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The hearings on both pending motions,

currently scheduled for JUNE 2, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M. and JUNE 9, 2005 AT 8:00 A.M., are

VACATED. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the first hearing to June 9, 2005, so both motions

would be heard simultaneously, is RENDERED MOOT. Finally, plaintiff’s request for attorney

fees and costs in connection with that motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01529-WHA Document 19 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 3