Shary Said v. Orange County District Attorney s office, 8:16-cv-01227

Plaintiff Shary Said filed suit in Orange County Superior Court against 36 parties, including Macy’s West and Alec Tenace, raising state-law tort/contract claims and one federal discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Macy’s West answered in state court; then removed the action to federal court under federal-question jurisdiction based on the federal discrimination claim.
Said filed a notice seeking voluntary dismissal shortly after removal; the clerk dismissed most defendants but Alec Tenace and Macy’s West remained because an answer had been filed.
Said moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and alternatively moved for voluntary dismissal of the federal claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
The court granted Said’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the federal claim (no legal prejudice shown), found it no longer had original federal-question jurisdiction, rejected Macy’s West’s diversity argument, declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims, and remanded the case to Orange County Superior Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal should be allowed after defendant answered	Said sought voluntary dismissal of the federal claim; argued dismissal appropriate	Macy’s West opposed but did not show legal prejudice from dismissal	Granted — dismissal allowed without prejudice (no legal prejudice shown)
Whether federal-question jurisdiction survives after dismissal of the only federal claim	Remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Macy’s West argued diversity jurisdiction exists (Said CA resident; Macy’s West an Ohio corporation)	Federal-question jurisdiction gone after dismissal; diversity not established; no original jurisdiction
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists	Said argued lack of diversity (presence of California resident defendant)	Macy’s West asserted complete diversity because only Said and Macy’s West remain and Macy’s West is incorporated in Ohio	Rejected — Alec Tenace remains a CA defendant; Macy’s West failed to adequately prove principal place of business to establish Ohio citizenship
Whether court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	Said sought remand to state court	Macy’s West implicitly preferred federal adjudication	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction (comity, judicial economy, fairness, convenience favor remand)

Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1987) (legal-prejudice standard for post-answer voluntary dismissal)
Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2001) (definition of legal prejudice in dismissal context)
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2001) (natural persons are citizens of their state of residence for diversity purposes)
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (requirement of complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction)
In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden of party asserting federal jurisdiction)
L’Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space & Airborne Sys., 805 F. Supp. 2d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (insufficiency of a single Secretary of State printout to prove a corporation’s nerve center)
Sanford v. Memberworks, 625 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2010) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
Harrell v. 20th Cent. Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1991) (preference to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims dismissed early)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only when removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis)