MARIO DE VERA v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-07814
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mario De Vera v. United Airlines, Judge Corley denied remand, finding diversity jurisdiction, and gave De Vera time to oppose United’s pending dismissal motion.
MARIO DE VERA and United Airlines, Inc.; the case remains in federal court, and De Vera received a deadline to oppose United’s pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In MARIO DE VERA v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., De Vera, representing himself, sued United Airlines in state court over alleged employment discrimination, including an allegedly improper buyout and later retaliation. United moved the case to federal court.
De Vera asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The court found that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was in dispute, so it denied the motion to remand.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley did not decide United’s pending motion to dismiss. She canceled the scheduled hearing and gave De Vera until December 11, 2025, to respond; United may reply by December 18, 2025.
The detailed version
- MARIO DE VERA v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. · No. 3:25-cv-07814
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
MARIO DE VERA filed a state-law employment discrimination action in Alameda County Superior Court. He alleges that United Airlines fraudulently enticed him to accept an early buyout and later retaliated against him when he was rehired. The opinion also identifies claims for wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
United removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. De Vera, who was proceeding without a lawyer, moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Remand ruling
The court denied the motion to remand. It held that United had established at least diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. The notice of removal identified De Vera as a California citizen and United Airlines as a citizen of Delaware and Illinois, establishing complete diversity for purposes of the court’s analysis.
The court also found that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Although De Vera argued that he sought seniority rather than back pay, his complaint alleged wrongful termination, and United’s evidence indicated that the termination occurred more than 15 years earlier. The evidence also showed that De Vera had worked full time at $31.37 per hour when he separated from United, which the court said placed more than $1 million in lost earnings in controversy. De Vera did not dispute that evidence.
Motion to dismiss
United had filed a motion to dismiss De Vera’s claims on September 19, 2025. De Vera had not filed an opposition. Because the court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, it stated that it could and must address the dismissal motion, but it did not rule on that motion in this order.
The court vacated the December 4, 2025 hearing on the dismissal motion and gave De Vera until December 11, 2025, to file an opposition. United may file a reply by December 18, 2025. The court stated that it would tell the parties if oral argument was required. The order disposes of Docket No. 19, the motion to remand.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.