UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 26, 2009
IT'S A LAUGH PRODUCTIONS ET AL
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
ORDER OF REMAND
Plaintiff is a former set painter for a television show who alleges she was suddenly terminated on the basis of wrongful allegations of drug use, and was humiliated in front of her co-workers. She filed a lawsuit against: her former employers It's A Laugh Productions and Disney-ABC Television Group; Hollywood Center Studios, the venue at which she worked; Pat Mahoney, an employee of Hollywood Center Studios; and Does 1 through 50. The suit was filed on February 19, 2009 in Los Angeles County Superior Court and alleged the following state law claims against all defendants: (1) defamation/slander; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) false light invasion of privacy; and (5) wrongful termination. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis that the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., wholly preempts all purported state law causes of action by an employee concerning a dispute over the terms and conditions of her employment if that employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").
After Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, the Court held that Defendants' removal was appropriate because Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim -- and the two emotional distress claims, to the extent they are premised upon it -- are preempted by Section 301. However, the Court held the defamation and invasion of privacy claims, which arise from the public accusations of drug use, and the two emotional distress claims -- to the extent they are premised upon the accusations -- are not preempted. On May 28, 2009, the Court dismissed the wrongful termination claim with leave to amend to attempt to state a federal claim under Section 301 of the LMRA. The Court warned that if Plaintiff did not amend her complaint to state an LMRA claim by June 25, 2009, the Court would remand the remaining state law claims -- over which the Court has no independent jurisdiction -- pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Plaintiff has not amended her complaint to add a federal claim. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and REMANDS them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.