Scott v. DoorDash

Background

Felicia Scott, proceeding without a lawyer, sued DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Instacart. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and wrote that her rights had been violated through a lack of consideration for unsafe areas and a lack of empathy toward her as a worker.

Scott described herself as a former DoorDash, Uber, and Instacart employee. She alleged that she was sent to distant and difficult delivery locations, was not given a chance to complete deliveries without penalty, and was reprimanded for a late delivery after being sent through a park, a school yard, and a highway on a rainy night. She also alleged that the defendants promised to reinstate her after three months but later denied reinstatement. She reported a sore leg, repeatedly swollen legs, and headaches from the stress of being unable to continue working. She sought $500,000 in damages.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Simply checking the federal-question box does not establish that jurisdiction. The court found that Scott’s allegations appeared to concern conditions of private employment and personal injuries, claims that generally arise under state law. It concluded that Scott had not alleged facts showing a viable federal-law claim.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. Scott alleged that she was a New York resident and that all three defendants were incorporated in California, but she indicated that at least one unspecified defendant had its principal place of business in New York. The court therefore found that Scott had not alleged diverse citizenship. It also found that, although Scott requested $500,000, she had not provided facts plausibly showing losses supporting that amount.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This was a jurisdictional ruling; the court did not decide whether Scott’s underlying employment or personal-injury allegations were legally valid. The court stated that it expressed no opinion on the merits of any federal employment-discrimination claims Scott might file separately.

Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it granted Scott 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The court said that a federal-question version would need facts showing a viable claim under the federal Constitution or a federal statute. A diversity version would need facts showing that the parties are citizens of different states and that the claims exceed $75,000.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Scott fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. If Scott does not file an amended complaint within the allowed time and cannot show good cause for the delay, the court stated that it will enter judgment dismissing the action.