John Susino v. Safeway Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:25-cv-03857
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In John Susino v. Safeway, Judge Davila ordered defendants to explain why the removed case should not return to state court.
John Susino and the defendants in the removed action are affected. The case remains in federal court for now, while defendants must explain why it should not be returned to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
What happened
John Susino, representing himself, filed this case in Santa Clara County Superior Court under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, alleging numerous employment-related and other claims. Defendants later moved the case to federal court.
The defendants argued that federal jurisdiction existed because federal labor law might preempt Susino’s claims and because the complaint referenced federal labor statutes. The court said a federal defense or references to federal law do not by themselves establish federal-question jurisdiction, and the complaint appeared to rely on California law.
The court ordered defendants to show cause by August 22, 2025, why the case should not be returned to state court. Judge Edward J. Davila also vacated the scheduled case-management conference and motion hearing while the jurisdictional issue is considered.
The detailed version
- John Susino v. Safeway Inc. · No. 5:25-cv-03857
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
John Susino, who is representing himself, filed the action in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on February 4, 2025. The complaint identifies its claims as violations brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA. PAGA allows employees to seek civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint lists 28 causes of action, including employment discrimination, retaliation, harassment, breach of contract, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and several fraud- and misrepresentation-related claims.
Defendants removed the case to the federal district court on May 2, 2025. After removal, the federal court had an independent duty to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
Jurisdictional issue
Defendants asserted federal-question jurisdiction based on Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Their position was that Section 301 preempted, or displaced, Susino’s claims. The court explained that a federal defense generally cannot create federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded-complaint rule. Under that rule, federal jurisdiction ordinarily must appear from the complaint itself, rather than from a defense or anticipated defense.
Defendants also asserted that federal-question jurisdiction existed because Susino referenced the Taft-Hartley Act and the National Labor Relations Act on five pages of the complaint. The court said that, construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Susino and considering his self-represented status, merely referencing federal statutes did not show that the claims arose under federal law. The court observed that the complaint suggested the claims arose under PAGA and California Labor Code violations.
Court’s order
The court ordered defendants to show cause why the action should not be remanded, or returned, to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendants must respond by August 22, 2025. The court stated that failure to respond will result in remand of the case to state court. The court did not remand the case in this order; it directed defendants to explain why remand should not occur.
The court also vacated the August 14, 2025, initial case-management conference and motion hearing pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.