999 F. Supp. 2d 226
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Pamela Levinson sued WilmerHale in D.C. Superior Court asserting D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act and D.C. Human Rights Act claims plus common-law breach and breach of good-faith claims tied to a retirement benefits plan.
- Defendant removed to federal court, arguing the common-law claims were completely preempted by ERISA and thus federal in character.
- After removal, Levinson moved to amend her complaint to drop the common-law (allegedly ERISA-preempted) claims and separately moved to remand the remaining D.C. law claims to Superior Court.
- Defendant opposed both motions, characterizing the amendment/remand as improper forum shopping and urging the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
- The Court applied Rule 15/Foman factors for amendment and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) principles, and concluded there was no undue delay, prejudice, futility, or bad faith that would bar amendment.
- The Court granted leave to amend and, invoking comity and the usual practice of declining jurisdiction when federal claims are eliminated, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining D.C. claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levinson should be allowed to amend to drop common‑law (allegedly ERISA‑preempted) claims | Levinson seeks to delete the ERISA‑preempted claims and pursue only D.C. law claims in Superior Court | Denies amendment is appropriate; calls it forum shopping | Granted — leave to amend permitted (no Foman factors against amendment) |
| Whether the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining D.C. law claims | Levinson asks to remand remaining state claims to Superior Court | WilmerHale urges the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and keep the case in federal court | Denied — court declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded on comity grounds |
| Whether the amendment constitutes improper forum manipulation/bad faith | Levinson: legitimate attempt to litigate state claims in chosen forum | WilmerHale: amendment is impermissible forum shopping | Court: not bad faith; deleting preempted claims permissible |
| Whether defendant would be prejudiced by remand because of a federal removal right | Levinson: no federal interest remains after amendment | WilmerHale: removal right should not be nullified by plaintiff's choice | Court: no cognizable federal interest remains; remand will not prejudice defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standard for leave to amend under Rule 15)
- Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Foman factors guide leave to amend)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors counseling denial of amendment: undue delay, prejudice, futility, bad faith, prior amendments)
- Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 1999) (permitting amendment to drop ERISA‑preempted claims is not improper forum manipulation)
- Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (when federal claims are eliminated before trial, factors favor declining pendent jurisdiction)
- Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass’n, 48 F.3d 1260 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (discussion of supplemental jurisdiction principles)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (removal is a statutory right not to be subject to plaintiff caprice)
- Zuurbier v. MedStar Health, Inc., 306 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (remanding state claims in the interest of comity after federal interests were eliminated)
- Woolf v. Mary Kay, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 654 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (similar remand for comity where federal claims removed)