1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OMONDI NYONG’O, 6 Case No. 21-cv-06238-YGR Plaintiff, 7 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND 8 THE COMPLAINT AND REMAND TO STATE SUTTER HEALTH, PALO ALTO MEDICAL COURT 9 FOUNDATION, and PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, Re: Dkt. No. 16 10 Defendants. 11 On June 22, 2021, plaintiff filed this action in San Francisco Superior Court. Defendants 12 removed the case to federal court on August 12, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. On September 13, 2021, 13 plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and remand to state court. Dkt. No. 16. Having 14 carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully 15 below, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.1 16 First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff either obtain consent of 17 the defendant or obtain leave of the court to amend his complaint once a defendant has answered. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In assessing whether to grant such leave, the Court considers five factors: 19 “(1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; [sic] 20 and (5) whether plaintiff has previously amended [its] complaint.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. 21 Gas Antitrust Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 22

(2015). The Court finds that the factors set out in Western States Wholesale weigh 23 in favor of granting leave.

Accordingly, and in view of defendants’ statement that they do 24 “not oppose Plaintiff’s request,” Dkt. No. 19 at 6 n.3, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to 25 amend. The Court notes here that in granting this motion, the amended complaint will eliminate 26

27 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court ] plaintiff's federal claims. 2 Accordingly, the Court next considers the motion to remand. The parties dispute whether 3 || the Court should remand the case to state court or exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. 4 || Federal courts have discretion “either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent state claims 5 || orto remand them to state court.” Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 6 1991). In deciding whether to remand, courts “consider and weigh . . . the values of judicial 7 economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

, 8 350 (1988). Where a single federal claim is eliminated at an early stage of litigation, the district 9 || court has “a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.” /d. at 351. 10 Here, the Court concludes that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all 11 point towards remanding this case. At this early stage of the case, the Court has neither 12 || considered the merits of the case nor invested substantial time and resources in this matter. 13 Further, because the Court has granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, which will eliminate 14 || the federal claims that provided a basis for removal, it is preferable as a matter of comity for state 3 15 court judges to apply state law to the remaining claims, which arise solely under state law. 16 || Finally, the Court is not convinced by defendants’ argument that plaintiffs inclusion of federal i 17 || statute language in his complaint was part of a ploy to manipulate the forum. Thus, the Court Zz 18 exercises its discretion to REMAND the case to state court. 19 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff is instructed to file the amended complaint within two 20 || business days of the order. Upon filing, the Clerk of the Court is directed to REMAND the case to 21 the San Francisco Superior Court and close the file. 22 IT Is SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: October 13, 2021 24 ‘ 7p 4 lag 4 oe YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 26 27 28