Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00828/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00828-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Blue Bird Body Company
Defendant
Blue Bird Corporation
Defendant
Roslyn R. Gardner
Plaintiff
George W. Gardner
Plaintiff
Holland Motor Homes
Defendant

Document Text:

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

GEORGE W. GARDNER and ROSLYN

R. GARDNER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BLUE BIRD CORPORATION,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY, and

HOLLAND MOTOR HOMES,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0828 SBA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to

Eliminate the Federal Causes of Action and Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this Action to the Superior

Court. [Docket Nos. 15 and 18]. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in

the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a

hearing. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Eliminate

the Federal Causes of Action and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of the State of California

for the County of San Francisco.

BACKGROUND

In August 2003, Plaintiffs George W. Gardner and Roslyn R. Gardner ("Plaintiffs") purchased

a new 2004 Blue Bird M380 motor home for $365,666.10 from Defendant Holland Motor Homes, an

authorized dealer of motor homes manufactured by Defendants Blue Bird Corporation and Blue Bird

Body Company. Complaint for Breach of Warranty (hereinafter "Compl.") at ¶ ¶ 1-4. During the first

six months after delivery of the motor home to Plaintiffs, they found various defects with the home. Id.

at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs contend that after numerous repair attempts by Bluebird-authorized repair shops

Defendants were unable to repair the home's defects during the express warranty period. Id. at ¶ 8. On

November 17, 2005, Plaintiffs wrote to Bluebird revoking acceptance of the motor home in question

and demanded a replacement motor home. Id. at ¶ 13. Bluebird refused. Id. at ¶ 14.

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 6
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 2

On January 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Blue Bird Corporation, Blue

Bird Body Company, and Holland Motor Homes ("Defendants") in the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants breached the express threeyear or 36,000 mile warranty against defects and one-year implied warranty of merchantability and

fitness for ordinary use. Id. at ¶ ¶ 5-6. Plaintiffs brought state causes of action against Defendants for

breach of the implied warranty under California Civil Code § 1792; violation of the express warranty

under California Civil Code § 1793.2; as well as federal causes of action against Defendants for

violation of the express warrant under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d); and breach of the implied warranty under

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). Id. at ¶ ¶ 21-40. Defendants answered the complaint on March 13, 2006. 

On February 7, 2006, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), Defendants removed this civil action to

this Court. On June 8, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motions for Leave to Amend the Complaint to

Eliminate the Federal Causes of Action and to Remand this Action to the Superior Court. 

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Leave to Amend

A plaintiff may amend her complaint once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Where plaintiff seeks to amend after a responsive pleading

has already been served, however, the decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the

sound discretion of the trial court. Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall

be freely given when justice so requires. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.

1994). In assessing whether to grant leave to amend, the court should consider factors such as "the

presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the proposed amendment."

Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989). Of these factors, prejudice to

the opposing party is the most important. See Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.

1990) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-31 (1971)).

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 6
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

An amended complaint filed as a matter of course or after leave of court supersedes the

original complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

II. Remand to State Court

When a case is properly removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, but the federal

claims subsequently drop out of the action, the district court retains the discretion to remand the action

to state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 348 (1988). In each case, and at

every stage of the litigation, the federal court must consider and weigh the values of judicial economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over a case

involving pendent state-law claims. Id. at 349. The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of

flexibility, designed to allow courts to deal with cases involving pendent claims in the manner that most

sensibly accommodates a range of concerns and values. Id. When the balance of the relevant factors

indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, such as when the federal claims have dropped out

of the lawsuit in the early stages of the litigation, the district court may decline the exercise of

jurisdiction and may remand the action to state court. Id. As the United States Supreme Court

recognized in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), the district court's jurisdiction

over state law claims "need not be exercised in every case in which it is found to exist . . . . Needless

decisions of state law should be avoided as a matter of comity[.]" 

ANALYSIS

I. Leave to Amend

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' motion to amend based on the amendment's resulting undue

prejudice to the Defendants. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed amended

complaint would strip Defendants of their right to a federal bench trial and would force them to

duplicate tasks. Although Plaintiffs have waived their rights to a jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 38, Defendants do not have a right to a federal bench trial. Indeed, the Seventh Amendment

only confers a right to a jury trial and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39 does not guarantee the

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 6
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 4

Defendants a bench trial after Plaintiffs' waiver. Moreover, the Defendants do not cite any legal basis

for their allegations that a defendant is unable to obtain a fair jury trial in a breach of warranty claim.

Defendants' second argument that they will be unduly prejudiced by having to duplicate tasks

similarly fails. Neither party has performed substantial work on the case to date. Much of the

information and effort used in this Court could be reused in state court. Furthermore, Defendants do

not establish prejudice by claiming they have incurred litigation expenses to date. Owens v. Kaiser

Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court finds that

Defendants would not be unduly prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment.

Defendants further oppose Plaintiffs' motion to amend as a bad faith effort to circumvent

Plaintiffs' jury waiver. Plaintiffs respond that their motion is not in bad faith. Plaintiffs contend that

they brought this motion to amend to facilitate a remand to state court. They cite Baddie v. Berkeley

Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1995) to validate their motivation for amendment. However,

Defendants' evidence shows that Plaintiffs sought to circumvent their jury waiver through an

amendment and as such, Plaintiffs' acted in bad faith. The ruling in Baddie is inapplicable to this case

because of Plaintiffs' bad faith. In Baddie, the Ninth Circuit found the Plaintiffs' removal and remand

proper because there was nothing "manipulative about [their] straightforward tactical decision" to

dismiss their federal claims and move for remand. Baddie, 64 F.3d at 491. Here, Plaintiffs do have a

manipulative motive, namely to undo their jury trial waiver. Moreover, the plaintiffs in Baddie

"dismissed their claims and moved for remand with all due speed after removal." Id. Here, Plaintiffs

waited almost four months after removal to file the instant motions. Further, in Thornton v. McClatchy

Newspaper, No. CV-97-06002-REC, Judge Coyle found the plaintiff "acted in bad faith in seeking to

amend her Complaint for the purpose of 'undoing' her jury waiver." Thornton v. McClatchy Newspaper,

261 F. 3d 789 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Thornton v. McClatchy Newspaper, No. CV-97-06002-REC).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to undo their jury waiver

is in bad faith.

Bad faith, however, is but one of the factors to consider in deciding a motion to amend. The

other relevant factors weigh in favor of granting the amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs' motion to

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 6
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 5

amend will not unduly prejudice the Defendants, is not unduly delayed, is not motivated by dilatory

purposes, is not another attempt to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, and would not be futile. As the

other factors weigh in favor of granting amendment and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) should

be "applied liberally in favor of amendments," the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs leave to amend their

complaint. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994).

II. Remand to Superior Court

 When a case is properly removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, but the federal

claims subsequently drop out of the action, the district court retains the discretion to remand the action

to state court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 348. As the amended complaint drops

the federal claims and retains only state law claims, the Court must consider the values of judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over

these pendant state-law claims. Id. at 349. The Court finds that these values weigh in favor of remand

because the litigation is in its early stages, remand would be fair, the Superior Court is equally as

convenient as this Court, and the remaining state law claims can be properly resolved in the Superior

Court. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 349 (When the balance of the relevant factors

indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, such as when the federal claims have dropped out

of the lawsuit in the early stages of the litigation, the district court may decline the exercise of

jurisdiction and may remand the action to state court). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the

remaining state law claims to the Superior Court.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs are GRANTED Leave to Amend the Complaint

to Eliminate the Federal Causes of Action. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the above captioned action is REMANDED to

the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 5 of 6
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 6

Dated: 7/25/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00828-SBA Document 33 Filed 07/25/06 Page 6 of 6