IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 6, 2011
WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ludwig, J.
This action was begun as an employment civil rights case. On March 22, 2011, an order was entered granting defendants'*fn1 motion to dismiss the amended complaint,*fn2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and denying plaintiff's motion to further amend the complaint on the ground that further amendment would be futile,*fn3 Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a).
On December 31, 2009, plaintiff Vamisidhar Vurimindi, pro se, commenced this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and on January 27, 2010, removal occurred, citing federal civil rights claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 241.
On August 13, 2010, plaintiff was granted leave to file a first amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint again, including the withdrawal of the federal claims set forth in the amended complaint.
Without the presence of the federal claims, this court lacks federal question jurisdiction, and diversity of citizenship among the parties also appears to be lacking. While under United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966) and New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 197 F.3d 96, 113 (3d Cir. 1999) the retention of supplemental state claims is discretionary, it does not appear that doing so would serve a useful purpose in this action.*fn4
Accordingly, the order of dismissal of the amended complaint and the denial of the motion to amend was entered.
BY THE COURT:
Edmund V. Ludwig, J.