Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-9359.
May 19, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's Response, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion.
BACKGROUND
This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiff, a 52-year-old African American male, alleges discrimination on the basis of race and age as well as unlawful retaliation.
Plaintiff initiated this action on or about December 2,2002, by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. His original complaint contained six counts, three of which alleged violations of federal employment discrimination laws. Defendant filed its notice of removal with this Court on December 23, 2002, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On January 14, 2003, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint dropping all of his federal employment discrimination claims and replacing them with equivalent state law claims. On the same day, he filed a motion to remand on the grounds that there were no longer any federal questions and that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction had not been met. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
LEGAL STANDARD
The fact that the federal claims which formed the basis for removal have been dropped or dismissed does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction, unless those federal claims were insubstantial on their face. Felice v. Sever, 985 F.2d 1221, 1225 (3d Cir. 1993). The Court thus has discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims or to remand the case.See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988) (district court has discretion to remand case after dismissal of federal claims); Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217,233 (3d Cir. 1995) (same). The Court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity. The Court should also take into account whether the Plaintiff has engaged in any manipulative tactics intended to secure a state forum. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 357; McCandless, 50 F.3d at 233.
DISCUSSION
In the instant case, following Defendant's proper removal to this court, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting virtually identical state law employment discrimination claims for the federal employment discrimination claims contained in his original complaint. On the same day, he filed this motion to remand. Defendant strongly opposes remand. Plaintiff's actions appear to be precisely the type of "manipulative tactics" that the Supreme Court cautioned district courts to "guard against" when it gave them the discretion to remand cases involving pendent state law claims. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 357. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny grant Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.