Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01681/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01681-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tim Henderson
Defendant
Rite Aid
Defendant
Rite Aid Corporation
Defendant
Thrifty Payless, Inc.
Defendant
Courtney Wright
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COURTNEY WRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., dba RITE 

AID, TIM HENDERSON, RITE AID 

CORPORATION, and DOES ONE 

through FIFTY, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-CV-01681-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff commenced this action in the Sacramento County Superior Court, 

alleging six claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) defamation; 

(4) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) breach of the employment contract; 

and (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Defs.’ Notice of Removal, Compl., 

Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1.) After defendant removed the case, this court exercised federal question 

jurisdiction because the fifth claim for breach of the employment contract alleged a dispute over a 

collective bargaining agreement. (ECF No. 16 at 6.) See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 

202, 209 (1985). On October 14, 2013, the court granted defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 

dismissing plaintiff’s breach of the employment contract claim without prejudice and plaintiff’s 

wrongful termination claim with prejudice. (ECF No. 16 at 10.) 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01681-KJM-EFB Document 44 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

 On November 2, 2013, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, alleging four 

state law claims: (1) false imprisonment; (2) invasion of privacy; (3) defamation; and 

(4) intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Pl.’s First Am. Compl. at 4–7, ECF No. 

19.) The First Amended Complaint omits the fifth claim for breach of the employment 

agreement, the only claim supporting the court’s initial exercise of federal question jurisdiction. 

(See id.) In addition, the parties conceded at the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Quash before the 

assigned magistrate judge that there was no diversity of citizenship. 

 Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED, within seven (7) days of entry of 

this order, to show cause why this court should not decline to exercise its discretion and retain 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but rather remand the case to state 

court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 16, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01681-KJM-EFB Document 44 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 2