1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JESSIE LOPEZ, on behalf of No. 2:23-cv-02734 WBS DB himself and all others similarly 13 situated, and the general public, 14 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 15 v. 16 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC., a 17 California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiff Jessie Lopez brought this putative labor 22 class action alleging violations of the California Labor Code by 23 his employer West Coast Arborists, Inc. in Sacramento Superior 24 Court. Defendant removed to federal court. (Docket No. 1.) 25 Plaintiff moves to remand. (Docket No. 23.) Defendant moves to 26 dismiss. (Docket No. 20.)1 27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 28 1 The court previously held that certain of plaintiff’s 2 claims were completely preempted by the Labor Management 3 Relations Act (“LMRA”). (See Docket No. 18.) Defendants 4 therefore properly removed the action based on federal question 5 jurisdiction. See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 6

(9th Cir. 2000) (a state law claim completely 7 preempted by section 301 of the LMRA “is considered, from its 8 inception, a federal claim” arising under section 301). 9 The court’s prior order dismissed plaintiff’s federally 10 preempted claims and granted plaintiff leave to amend. (See 11 Docket No. 18.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in 12 compliance with the court’s order, which did not re-plead any of 13 the dismissed federally preempted claims. (See Docket No. 19.) 14 The court therefore no longer has federal question jurisdiction, 15 as only state claims remain. See Balcorta,

; 16 Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-04849 WHO,

15654244, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2022) (in case alleging 18 violations of Labor Code, court concluded that only state law 19 claims remained after dismissing claims preempted by LMRA). 20 Federal courts have “supplemental jurisdiction over all 21 other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 22 such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case 23 or controversy under Article III of the United States 24 Constitution.”

(a). A district court “may 25 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . [if] the 26 district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 27 original jurisdiction.”

at § 1367(c)(3). 28 “The decision whether to continue to exercise eee eI IEE OE IE II IIR IDE IGE ESE) I ED EE

1 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal 2 claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s 3 discretion.” Foster v. Wilson,

(9th Cir. 4 2007). “[{W]hen the federal-law claims have dropped out of the 5 lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain,” 6 | then the factors to be considered -- judicial economy, 7 convenience, fairness, and comity -- “indicate[] that [the] case 8 properly belongs in state court.” See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. 9 Cohill,

(1988), superseded on other grounds by 10 |

. 11 Here, the case is only at the motion to dismiss stage 12 and the court has not yet issued a scheduling order. Remanding 13 the case to state court is therefore appropriate. See id.; Parra 14 v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 15 2013) (where court had “dismissed the only claim over which it 16 | had original jurisdiction” and case was “at an early stage of the 17 litigation,” court did not abuse discretion in dismissing 18 remaining state claims under § 1367(c)); Chatman,

15654244, at *13 (remanding case pursuant to § 1367(c) following 20 dismissal of claims preempted by LMRA). 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 22 remand (Docket No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. This 23 case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of 24 California, in and for the County of Sacramento. 25 | Dated: March 12, 2024 betd ak. 1g th 26 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 57 | — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Because the court remands the case, it need not address 28 | defendant’s motion to dismiss.