Susan Thoele v. Mainfreight Limited

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 12, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02813
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

July 12, 2021 Case No. 2:21-cv-02813-SVW-AGR Date

Susan Theole et al. v. Mainfreight Limited et al. Title

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING [39] MOTION TO REMAND.

Before the Court is a motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Susan Theole. Dkt. 39.

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter. “When a claim can be supported by alternative and independent theories—one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory—federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996).

Here, Plaintiff has plead alternative theories of vicarious liability for negligence, only one of which relies on federal law. Accordingly, no federal question jurisdiction exists in this case. See id. (finding no federal question jurisdiction where plaintiff asserted claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and plead alternative underlying public policies, one federal and one state); see also Glanton v. Harrah’s Ent., Inc., 297 F. App’x 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2008) (no federal question jurisdiction where plaintiff asserted claim for intolerable working conditions on alternative bases of federal regulations and state public policy); Hinojosa v. Perez, 214 F. Supp. 2d 703, 705–06 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (finding no federal question jurisdiction even though plaintiff asserted vicarious liability based on federal regulations); Moody v. Great West Cas. Co., 2017 WL 77417 (S.D. Ga., Jan. 9, 2017) (same).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court. The pending motions to dismiss, Dkts. 32, 40, are moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: