Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-1894(DMC).
October 26, 2005
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Carrie Coleman's motion to remand this case to state court. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, no oral argument was heard. After carefully reviewing the parties' submissions, it is respectfully recommended that plaintiff's motion for remand be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff is a 48 year old African American woman who was employed by defendant Public Service Electric and Gas Company ("PSEG") as a secretary for 21 years. According to the complaint, PSEG terminated plaintiff's employment in October 2002 for allegedly taking beverages from the PSEG executive suite during a concert. Plaintiff claims that her termination was racially motivated. On March 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint against PSEG and PSEG Services Corporation in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint alleged employment discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981.On April 8, 2005, defendants removed the case to this court based on the two federal claims alleged. Plaintiff then moved to amend the complaint to delete the two federal causes of action upon which the case was removed. On May 13, 2005, all claims against defendant PSEG Services Corporation were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. With the consent of defendants, plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was ultimately granted by order dated October 2, 2005. Since the only claims remaining are state law claims, plaintiff wishes to remand to the Superior Court of New Jersey. PSEG opposes remand.
DISCUSSION
Only state law claims remain in the case. Defendant PSEG opposes remand because it claims that plaintiff engaged in strategic forum shopping by voluntarily dismissing the federal claims for the exclusive purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction. PSEG argues that it should not be deprived of its proper removal simply because plaintiff prefers to proceed in state court. Plaintiff's counsel contends in response that the federal claims were mistakenly pleaded. Specifically, counsel states that the Title VII claims should not have been asserted due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the § 1981 claim provides plaintiff with no benefit beyond that provided by the NJLAD.
It is clear that when PSEG filed its removal petition, original jurisdiction existed because plaintiff included federal claims in her complaint. Thus, the removal was proper. Following removal, plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to omit her federal claims. Defendant consented and the federal claims have been removed from the case.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), when all federal claims have been eliminated and only state claims remain, a federal district court has discretion to remand a properly removed case to state court. In considering whether to remand, a district court should consider what "best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine." Id. at 357. In particular, the Supreme Court stated that "when the single federal claim in the action is eliminated at an early state of the litigation, the district court has a powerful reason to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction." Id. at 351. In accordance with theCarnegie-Mellon reasoning, where there has been no substantial commitment of judicial resources to the nonfederal claims, it is "akin to making the tail wag the dog" for the district court to retain jurisdiction. Cole v. Pathmark of Fairlawn, 672 F. Supp. 796, 807 (D.N.J. 1987).
Defendant's argument against remand stems from language in theCarnegie-Mellon case suggesting that district courts guard against forum manipulation by considering "whether the plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to remand a case." Essentially, the Supreme Court indicated that blatant forum manipulation is a factor that may be taken into account in determining whether the balance of factors supports remanding a case.
Under the circumstances in this case, this Court believes that the appropriate course of action is to remand the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey. The federal claims were promptly dismissed and there has been no commitment of judicial resources to the nonfederal claims. This is a garden variety discrimination case brought under the NJLAD. Although plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of her federal claims can plainly be viewed as an attempt to manipulate the forum, plaintiff's counsel represents that he never should have asserted the federal claims. Even if this Court assumes there was an attempt at forum manipulation by plaintiff, it is outweighed by the other factors favoring remand. Specifically, the principles of economy, convenience, fairness and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine outweigh the alleged forum manipulation and justify remand of the case to the state court. Indeed, defendant cited no case in which the court refused to remand a case in this posture on the basis of alleged forum manipulation. Although the Court takes the forum manipulation allegation seriously, it is convinced that this is a state court case that belongs in state court. Thus, in light of the dismissal of the federal claims, the district court in its discretion should decline to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims, which should be remanded back to state court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that plaintiff's motion to remand should be granted.