Pauley v. LYFT
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-10252
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 27
In Pauley v. Lyft, Judge Gilliam remanded the case to state court after the parties agreed to remove federal claims and file an amended complaint.
Jordan Matthew Pauley and Lyft, Inc.; the case was returned to Alameda County Superior Court, and each side must bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In JORDAN MATTHEW PAULEY v. LYFT, INC., Pauley sued Lyft over alleged employment-related use of criminal-background information and discrimination. Lyft removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court to federal court because the complaint included federal claims.
Pauley then sought to amend the complaint to remove the federal claims and asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The parties jointly agreed that, after the amendment, there would be no basis for federal jurisdiction. They also agreed that each side would pay its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the case remanded to Alameda County Superior Court, directed Pauley to file the attached amended complaint there, and directed the federal clerk to close the case. The order did not decide whether Pauley’s allegations against Lyft were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Pauley v. LYFT · No. 4:25-cv-10252
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 15, 2025
Background
Jordan Matthew Pauley filed a complaint against Lyft in Alameda County Superior Court on October 27, 2025. The complaint alleged violations involving criminal-background checks and discrimination against a job applicant. Lyft removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 26, 2025, invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.
On December 1, 2025, Pauley filed a motion to amend the complaint to remove the federal claims and requested that the federal court remand, or return, the case to state court. The parties stipulated that once the complaint was amended to dismiss all federal claims, there would no longer be a basis for federal jurisdiction. Pauley signed the filing as “Plaintiff in Pro Per,” meaning he represented himself.
The attached First Amended Complaint asserted California-law claims concerning alleged use of expunged criminal-history information, investigative consumer reports, unfair business practices, invasion of privacy, and gross negligence. Those allegations were not decided by the federal court.
Order
The court approved the parties’ stipulation as modified in the order. It ordered that the action be remanded to Alameda County Superior Court, with each side bearing its own attorney’s fees and costs. It also ordered that Pauley file the First Amended Complaint in state court after remand and directed the federal clerk to close the case.
What the ruling means
The federal court ended its involvement because the amended pleading would contain no federal claims supporting federal jurisdiction. The order was a procedural ruling about which court should handle the case; it did not rule on liability, damages, discrimination, background-check practices, privacy, or any other merits issue.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.