ALICEA v. OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE
2:10-cv-04702
| D.N.J. | Jun 9, 2011Background
- Alicea, a New Jersey plaintiff, sued Outback Steakhouse and related entities in state court alleging NJLAD and Title VII claims.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court after initial filing, invoking federal-question and/or supplemental jurisdiction theories.
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in federal court asserting only state-law claims, removing any Title VII claim.
- Plaintiff moved to remand arguing removal was untimely and that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
- Magistrate Judge Cecchi recommended remand, concluding lack of federal jurisdiction over the amended complaint and discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
- District Court adopted the recommendation and remanded the case to state court; objections to sanctions and remedies were overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Alicea contends removal was untimely | Defendants argue removal timely | Remand proper; issue not dispositive after remand |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction after amended complaint | Amended complaint contains only state claims | Defendants maintain federal jurisdiction via removal grounds | Lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; remand appropriate |
| Exercise of supplemental jurisdiction | State claims should be remanded without federal auxiliary review | Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction | Court should remand; no exercise of supplemental jurisdiction necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. N. J. Zinc Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1987) (review of magistrate recommendations; de novo standard varies by dispositive nature)
- State Farm Indem. v. Fornaro, 227 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.N.J. 2002) (de novo review of objections to magistrate reports; standards for appellate review)
- Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990) (de novo review of portions of report to which objections are made)
- Kresefky v. Panasonic Commc’ns & Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54 (D.N.J. 1996) (non-dispositive magistrate rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)