Khan v. Greenspan Company
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-01121
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Khan v. Greenspan Company, Judge Chhabria remanded the lawsuit, denied attorney’s fees, and denied the motion to seal and strike.
Masood Khan and the defendants are affected. The lawsuit was remanded to San Francisco Superior Court, the federal case was closed, Khan’s request for attorney’s fees was denied, and the defendants could pursue a narrower sealing request within 14 days or renew their arguments about privileged material in state court.
What happened
In Khan v. Greenspan Company, Masood Khan abandoned claims concerning employee benefit plans, including claims involving the defendants’ management of an employee stock ownership plan and unpaid benefits. The remaining claims arose under state law and did not involve the federal employee-benefits law discussed by the court.
Because the remaining claims were state-law claims over which the federal court had only supplemental jurisdiction, the court chose to send the lawsuit back to San Francisco Superior Court. The court denied Khan’s request for attorney’s fees. It also denied the defendants’ motion to seal and strike, while allowing them to file a narrower request to seal the complaint within 14 days.
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the case remanded and directed the clerk to close it. The court did not address the defendants’ arguments that privileged material should be removed from the complaint; the defendants could renew those arguments in state court.
The detailed version
- Khan v. Greenspan Company · No. 3:20-cv-01121
- Vince Chhabria
- June 29, 2020
Background
Masood Khan’s lawsuit originally included claims related to employee benefit plans, including allegations that the defendants mismanaged an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) or failed to provide benefits owed under the ESOP. The opinion states that Khan had abandoned those claims. The remaining claims were based only on state law and did not implicate the federal employee-benefits law at issue in the court’s discussion.
The defendants had removed the lawsuit to federal court. The court stated that it had only supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and that the defendants appeared to concede that point. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear certain state-law claims connected to claims within federal jurisdiction.
Rulings
The court exercised its discretion to remand the lawsuit to state court. It granted the motion to remand and ordered the case remanded to San Francisco Superior Court. The court also denied Khan’s request for attorney’s fees.
The court denied the defendants’ motion to seal and strike. It expressed skepticism that any material in the complaint could be sealed based on the evidence submitted at that stage and stated that sealing the entire complaint was grossly overbroad. The defendants could file a renewed, narrower sealing request within 14 days of the order.
The court declined to address the defendants’ arguments that privileged material in the complaint should be stricken. It stated that the defendants could renew those arguments in state court. The clerk was directed to close the federal case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.