Xiz v. Martinez

Background

In March 2025, Hui Ying Xiz filed a request for a civil-harassment restraining order against Alex Martinez in San Mateo County Superior Court. Xiz’s filing identified Martinez as a work supervisor at the United States Postal Service in Burlingame. The filing described workplace disputes involving work hours, loading and scanning packages, Martinez raising her voice and hitting a clipboard, and Xiz reporting an alleged physical assault to a union and going home.

Xiz asked the state court to order Martinez to stay at least 100 yards away from Xiz, Xiz’s home, and Xiz’s job, among other places. The state court denied Xiz’s request for a temporary restraining order while an April 8, 2025 hearing was pending. Before that hearing, Martinez removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), which allows certain cases against federal officers or agencies to be moved from state court to federal court. Martinez then moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Xiz was not represented by an attorney and did not oppose the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court considered the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Martinez argued that dismissal was required because sovereign immunity had not been waived, the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine applied, and the Supremacy Clause barred the case.

Sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from lawsuits unless the United States clearly agrees to be sued. A lawsuit against a federal employee is treated as a lawsuit against the United States when the requested judgment would interfere with government operations or restrain the government’s activities. Here, the requested order would require Martinez to stay away from the workplace where both Martinez and Xiz worked. The court concluded that the order would impair Martinez’s performance of federal duties, making the case effectively one against the United States.

The court stated that Xiz had the burden of identifying a clear waiver or exception to sovereign immunity. Because Xiz did not oppose the motion, Xiz did not meet that burden, and the court was not aware of a clear waiver. The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply because it concerns claims for money damages, while Xiz sought an order restricting conduct. The court also declined to consider whether the Postal Reorganization Act waived sovereign immunity because Xiz had not raised that argument and Martinez had not had an opportunity to respond.

The court further held that the derivative-jurisdiction doctrine applied. Under that doctrine, when a state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a case before removal, the federal court generally cannot obtain jurisdiction through the removal. Because the restraining-order request was barred by sovereign immunity, the court concluded that the state court lacked jurisdiction and that the federal court also lacked jurisdiction over the removed case.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Martinez’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. It stated that a separate judgment would issue and that the order disposed of Docket No. 5.