Defendant employer moved to dismiss plaintiff employee’s amended complaint and plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court in plaintiff’s action for wrongful termination of employment and related claims.
Overview
Plaintiff employee had brought action against defendant employer for wrongful termination of employment, breach of implied contract, and other claims. Defendant employer removed the action to federal court and plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff amended so as to remove any federal claim, and then moved to remand. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, and dismissed the complaint, holding that even though plaintiff had removed all federal claims from his pleading the court retained jurisdiction to dismiss the state law claims remaining in the amended complaint. The court held that plaintiff’s claims for breach of employment agreement, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were preempted by federal labor law. The court held that claims for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and Cal. Bus. And Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. exceeded the court’s grant of leave to amend the complaint and were preempted by federal law.
Outcome
The court granted defendant employer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff employee’s amended complaint and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand his action to state court. The court held that even though plaintiff had removed all federal claims from his pleading the court retained jurisdiction to dismiss the state law claims remaining in the amended complaint. Appellant was represented by a business attorney.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Where plaintiffs alleged that defendant manufactured defective vehicles, dismissal of the claims by two of the plaintiffs under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, was not warranted because they sufficiently identified the alleged defect, that the defect that was material, and that defendant knew of a material defect at the time it sold the vehicles; [2]-Dismissal of a claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(a)(2) was not warranted because plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the defect could cause catastrophic engine failure while a vehicle was in operation, at any time and at any speed, and that the defect existed at the time they purchased their vehicles.
Outcome
Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
