IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 29, 2011
DANIEL LOURIM, PLAINTIFF,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AN ACQUIRER OF CERTAIN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACTING AS RECEIVER; MARK SHELTON; GEORGE SANDERS AND DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT, DENYING DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED DISMISS, AND REMANDING CASE*fn1
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and to remand this case to the state court from which it was removed. Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint, which is attached to his motion, removes the sole federal claim which was the basis for federal question removal jurisdiction.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing it "is nothing but Plaintiff's bad faith attempt to circumvent the Court's jurisdiction and prevent the Court from ruling on the merits of Defendants' [pending] Motion to Dismiss[;]" and, they "will be forced to continue litigating Plaintiff's meritless claims in state court." (Opp'n to Mot. to Am.Compl. 3:7-11). However, these arguments are unpersuasive since Defendants have not provided sufficient reason for preventing Plaintiff from abandoning his federal claim so he can litigate his case in state court. See Baddie v. Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted, and the amended complaint attached to Plaintiff's motion is deemed filed on the same date on which this order is filed. Therefore, Defendants' pending motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is denied as moot, and this case is remanded to the Superior Court of California in the County of Sacramento from which it was removed.