Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-09046
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Judge White granted remand and denied PG&E’s dismissal motion without prejudice because federal jurisdiction was lacking.
Adrienne Thomas and Pacific Gas and Electric Company; the case will proceed, if at all, in Contra Costa County Superior Court rather than federal court.
What happened
Adrienne Thomas sued Pacific Gas and Electric Company over her termination and related employment claims in California state court. PG&E removed the case to federal court, arguing that a federal labor law provision created jurisdiction.
The court found removal premature because Thomas’s proposed amended complaint had not been accepted by the state court. The court also concluded that the proposed complaint contained no federal claim: it omitted a previously asserted Title VII claim and instead indicated that Thomas intended to pursue California claims. Without a federal claim, the court could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
Judge White granted Thomas’s motion to remand the case to Contra Costa County Superior Court and denied PG&E’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the federal case.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company · No. 4:24-cv-09046
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
PG&E terminated Adrienne Thomas on January 5, 2022. Thomas previously brought federal and state claims arising from her termination. In an earlier round of the case, the court dismissed some claims with prejudice and dismissed other claims with leave to amend; after Thomas missed the amendment deadline, the court dismissed that case without prejudice.
Thomas later filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and, after receiving a right-to-sue letter, filed a complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court using a form for breach of contract. The form did not identify the contract involved. PG&E removed the case to federal court, asserting that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act completely preempted the claims and that the court had supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. PG&E also moved to dismiss based on the earlier proceedings. Thomas moved to remand the case to state court.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that removal is allowed only when the federal court has original jurisdiction over the action. The party removing the case bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction, and removal rules are strictly construed against federal jurisdiction.
The court rejected PG&E’s argument that removal was required when PG&E received a proposed first amended complaint. The proposed complaint had not been accepted for filing in state court. The court found removal premature because a plaintiff’s intention to add a federal claim does not create federal jurisdiction when the state court has not granted permission to add that claim.
The court stated that it would reach the same result even if the proposed amended complaint qualified as an “other paper” that could trigger removal. The court had previously dismissed with prejudice Thomas’s breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims, as well as part of her retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5, because those claims were preempted. The proposed amended complaint did not include a Title VII claim and instead indicated that Thomas intended to pursue claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court therefore found no federal claim supporting federal jurisdiction and no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Thomas’s motion to remand the matter to Contra Costa County Superior Court. It DENIED PG&E’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the federal case. The order addressed removal jurisdiction and did not decide the merits of the underlying employment claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.