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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GERALD MAROLDA, III,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T CORP., a New York corporation, et

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5769 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Complaint to Eliminate Title VII Claim and Remand to State Court [Dkt. #6].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

On or about November 3, 2005 plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in Pierce County Superior

Court in which he alleged that “[p]ursuant to Chapter 49 RCW and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

the defendants, in terminating Mr. Marolda’s employment discharged him because he opposed practices

forbidden by Chapter 49 RCW[ ] . . . .” First Amended Complaint, ¶ 4.3. Based upon the above quoted

language, on November 28, 2005, the defendants properly removed the case to this Court asserting federal

question jurisdiction.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to remove any allegations of a Title VII claim, stating that

the inclusion of the Title VII language was due to scrivener’s error and then asks this Court to remand the

matter to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Defendants do not oppose the proposed amendment,

Case 3:05-cv-05769-RBL Document 13 Filed 01/17/06 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

 ORDER

Page - 2

but they do argue against remand because they prefer this Court’s local rules regarding mediation of claims.

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1367(c)(3) provides in pertinent part:

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if – . . . (3) the

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction[.]

In deciding whether or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, this Court considers the factors of judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 363 (9th Cir. 1994).

“[I]n the usual case in which federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of [the factors of judicial

economy, convenience, fairness, and comity] will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the

remaining state law claims.” Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied, 507 U.S. 1004 (1993) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the balance of factors weighs toward

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. This is a new case in which the Court has not invested

significant resources, the state court is an equally convenient forum, fairness is not affected, and the concept

of comity is advanced by allowing the state court to determine issues of purely state law. It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Eliminate Title VII Claim and

for Remand to State Court [Dkt. #6] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claim in paragraph 4.3 of his First Amended

Complaint to the extent it raises a claim under Title VII is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall file plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint [Dkt. #8] and then shall remand this matter to the Pierce County Superior Court. The

Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.

Dated this 17th day of January, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05769-RBL Document 13 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2