MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Pending before the court is Plaintiff Fred Mogul’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Mogul”) motion to remand to state court. (Dkt. No. 15).1 Plaintiff claims that remand is warranted because removal was untimely, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Defendants oppose this motion. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20). Plaintiff’s original complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “State Court Action”) asserted claims for defamation, wrongful termination, denial of severance pay and benefits in violation of New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) §190 et seq., breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Defendants removed this case on the ground that Mogul’s claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20) because they either alleged a violation of a labor contract — the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) — or were substantially dependent on analysis of the terms of the CBA. Either would result in federal preemption of his state law claims. (See Dkt. No. 1, 11). Following removal, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which he was entitled to do as of right. The amended complaint dropped all his claims except those for defamation and IIED. The complaint was properly removed at the time it was moved from state to federal court. Removal was timely and at that time the pleading asserted state law claims that were federally preempted — namely, Mogul’s wrongful termination, NYLL, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Moreover, the court was empowered to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims, even though they were not federally preempted. However, now that the removable claims — the federally preempted claims — have been dropped from the complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Deciding the claims for defamation and IIED does not involve interpretation of the CBA; they involve only an adjudication of whether plaintiff plagiarized. Moreover, a companion case against plaintiffs union, which was indisputably federal in nature, has been settled; as a result, there is simply no reason for this quintessentially state law case to be heard in federal court. The motion to remand is granted. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Plaintiff is a journalist who worked as a reporter for New York Public Radio (“NYPR”). (Dkt. No. 1-3 (“Compl.”), 10). Defendants are NYPR, “WNYC” (a station of NYPR),2 and Audrey Cooper (“Cooper”), the Editor in Chief at NYPR. (Id. 1 ). This dispute arose when Plaintiff was terminated from NYPR in February 2021 for allegedly plagiarizing portions of a draft story. (Id.
37-51, 90). Plaintiff also alleges, that subsequent to his termination, Defendant Cooper held a newsroom meeting, at which Cooper explained publicly that Plaintiff had been fired for plagiarism. (Id.
