Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01548/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01548-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Helen Akar
Plaintiff
Holiday Inns, Inc.
Defendant
Gino Lassara
Defendant
Lira Robles
Defendant

Document Text:

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN AKAR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLIDAY INNS, INC., LIRA ROBLES,

GINO LASSARA and DOES 1 to 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-01548 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion to Remand

Plaintiff Helen Akar filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California in the

County of San Francisco alleging four causes of action under California law: (1) violation of

Government Code sections 12921 and 12940(a), (j) and (k); (2) wrongful discharge in violation of

public policy; (3) violation of Government Code section 12940(k); and (4) breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 15, 2005 defendant Holiday Inns, Inc. removed the

action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The removal was premised on plaintiff's breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, which arises under and is preempted by section 301 of

the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. section 185. At no time did defendants assert

diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removal. 

Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

claim, defendants agreed and the court dismissed the claim on September 26, 2005. The remaining

three claims against defendants are purely state law claims over which this court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

2

The action is hereby remanded to state court. The Clerk of Court shall transmit forthwith to

the Clerk of the Superior Court of San Francisco County a certified copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 29,2005 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court 

Northern District of California