Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02839/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02839-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDY REED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF

THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES,

MOTION PICTURE TECHNICIANS,

ARTISTS AND ALLIED CRAFTS OF THE

UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND

CANADA, LOCAL 16, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-2839 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

AS MOOT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED

(Docket No. 4)

On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in state court, alleging eight causes of

action: the first four causes of action based on violations of the California Fair Employment

and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, and the remainder based on violations

of common law. On July 12, 2005, defendants International Alliance of Theatrical Stage

Employees, Motion Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its

territories and Canada, Local 16 (“Local 16”), F.X. Crowley (“Crowley”), and Richard J. Putz

(“Putz”) removed the action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction,

asserting that plaintiff’s common law causes of action are completely preempted by § 301 of

the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and, therefore, governed by

federal law. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 10.)
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

 A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,

231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

 The Court expresses no opinion as to whether the amended causes of action state

claims upon which relief may be granted.

2

On July 13, 2005, Crowley and Putz filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted

against them. In the motion, Crowley and Putz argue that, absent an allegation of harassment,

individual supervisory employees are not subject to personal liability under FEHA. They

further argue that plaintiff’s common law claims are preempted by the LMRA, and that

individuals are not subject to personal liability under the LMRA.

On August 3, 2005, rather than oppose the motion, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint, in which she deleted all of her common law claims and amended her FEHA claims. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to “amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a).1 As no answer has been filed to date, plaintiff had the right to file an amended

complaint. See Id. As the amendments address claims that are the subject of the motion to

dismiss, the motion to dismiss the claims as originally pleaded is hereby DENIED as moot. 

See Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting an amended

complaint “supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent”).2

In amending her complaint, plaintiff has dismissed all of the claims upon which

defendants relied for removal. All of the remaining claims are state law claims, and there is no

allegation of diversity. As no allegation of federal question jurisdiction remains, the parties

are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the instant action should not be remanded

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). No later than August 22, 2005, defendants shall file a

response to the order to show cause. No later than August 29, 2005, plaintiff shall file a reply

to defendants’ response. As of August 29, 2005, the Court, unless the

//

//
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

parties are otherwise advised, will take the matter under submission.

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge