Summary
The court grants the pro se plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to remove all federal claims and orders the proposed amended complaint filed. The magistrate judge recommends granting the plaintiff’s motion to remand the remaining California-law claims to Sacramento County Superior Court and denies as moot the motion to file documents electronically.
Holdings
- Leave to amend was granted because Rule 15(a)(2) requires courts to freely give leave when justice so requires, and defendants did not oppose the motion.
- The magistrate judge recommended that the action be remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court because the first amended complaint eliminated the federal claims and presented no federal question.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint to eliminate the federal claims.
- Whether the action should be remanded to state court after the amended complaint eliminated the federal claims that supported removal.
- Whether plaintiff's motion to file documents electronically should be denied as moot if the case is remanded.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Arizona Students’ Ass’n v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 871 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25-26 (2025)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…