Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05460/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Cervantes
Plaintiff
RGW Construction, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARTURO CERVANTES,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RGW CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-05460-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

REMAND 

 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and now VACATES 

the January 23, 2017 hearing. After carefully considering the parties’ written arguments, 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. 

BACKGROUND 

On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff Arturo Cervantes commenced a civil action against 

his former employer, RGW Construction Inc., in Alameda County Superior Court. He 

brought five causes of action under state law on behalf of himself and other similarly 

situated individuals. On September 23, 2016, Defendant timely removed the case to this 

Court because Plaintiff’s claims involved interpretation of a collective bargaining 

agreement and thus implicated questions of federal law under the Labor Management 

Relations Act (“LMRA”). 

In response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff agreed to 

dismiss four out of five claims, submitting them instead to a grievance procedure outlined 

in the collective bargaining agreement. The only remaining claim is Plaintiff’s Third Cause 

of Action, in which Plaintiff alleges that wage statements issued by Defendant failed to 

include a “start date for the applicable pay period” in violation of California Labor Code 

Case 3:16-cv-05460-TEH Document 27 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

Section 226(a). Opp’n at 2. Shortly after an initial Case Management Conference held 

before this Court on December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion for remand. 

DISCUSSION 

Upon removal of a case to federal court, a district court has discretion to remand a 

case once federal claims are eliminated. Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 

(9th Cir. 1997). In determining whether to remand, “the balance of factors to be 

considered” are “judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon 

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). A court may also consider “whether the plaintiff 

has engaged in any manipulative tactics” in order to inappropriately secure a particular 

forum. Id. The Supreme Court has noted that when all federal claims are eliminated early 

on, a district court has “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise 

jurisdiction.” Id. at 350-51. 

Defendant is correct that remand is not mandatory. Remand, however, “is generally 

preferable” when, as here, the sole remaining claim is a state law claim. Harrell v. 20th 

Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991). This is especially true when the 

“federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages.” Carnegie-Mellon 

Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 (citing Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966)). 

Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the four claims that implicated federal law less than a month 

after the case was removed to federal court. There has been an initial Case Management 

Conference held but the parties have yet not begun discovery or engaged in the Alternative 

Dispute Resolution process. Given that remand is sought early in the proceedings, 

Defendant fails to convince this Court that it should retain jurisdiction over the sole 

remaining state law claim. 

The balance of the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity 

further tips the scale in favor of remand. The Court has yet to delve into the merits of 

Plaintiff’s complaint; thus, there would be no duplication of efforts or resulting waste of 

judicial resources in remanding this action back to state court. Although Defendant lists 

Case 3:16-cv-05460-TEH Document 27 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

fairness as a factor opposing remand, Defendant does not explain its reasoning and the 

Court is unpersuaded. As neither the Alameda Superior Court nor this Court appear more 

convenient to the parties, the Court finds the convenience factor neutral. Lastly, comity 

weighs in favor of remand since the sole remaining claim arises under state law. 

 Defendant’s primary argument against remand is that Plaintiff acted manipulatively 

when he sought to compel remand by dismissing the federal question claims. The Court 

finds nothing manipulative about responding to a motion to dismiss by dismissing claims 

that fall within the purview of the collective bargaining agreement and should thus be 

addressed through the agreement’s grievance procedure. There is no evidence here that 

Plaintiff’s actions constitute an effort at manipulative forum shopping. It is simply more 

appropriate for the state court to resolve Plaintiff’s remaining claim. 

CONCLUSION 

With good cause appearing, the Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand. This matter is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of 

California for the County of Alameda. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/09/17 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-05460-TEH Document 27 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3