Howell v. Do
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-04897
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Howell v. Do, Judge Corley ordered Do to explain why the removed negligence case should not return to state court for lack of jurisdiction.
Natalia Howell and Andrew Do were affected. The order required Do to defend the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction and allowed Howell to reply; it did not finally decide whether the case would be remanded or resolve the negligence claim.
What happened
Natalia Howell sued her former supervisor, Andrew Do, in Alameda County Superior Court over a negligence claim. Do removed the case to federal court, relying on supplemental jurisdiction and a related federal lawsuit involving Howell, Do, and Garden of Eden.
The court questioned whether supplemental jurisdiction could support removal when the related federal claims were in a separate lawsuit. It explained that federal courts may hear supplemental claims only as part of a case in which they already have original jurisdiction.
The court ordered Andrew Do to show why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley set deadlines for Do’s response and Howell’s reply and continued the pending motion-to-dismiss hearing.
The detailed version
- Howell v. Do · No. 3:20-cv-04897
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
Natalia Howell filed a negligence action against her former supervisor, Andrew Do, in Alameda County Superior Court in December 2019. Do removed the action to the Northern District of California in July 2020, invoking supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The opinion states that Howell also filed a separate action against Garden of Eden, Do’s current employer and her former employer, in Alameda County Superior Court around the same time. Garden of Eden removed that action under § 1367 as well. Both removed cases were related to Howell’s employment-discrimination action filed directly in federal court against Garden of Eden and Do.
Jurisdictional issue
The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court case only when the federal court has original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction can include diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires diversity of citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy, or federal-question jurisdiction, which requires the action to arise under federal law.
Do’s notice of removal stated that removal was proper because Howell’s state-law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the related federal case. The court concluded that § 1367 limits supplemental jurisdiction to claims within a civil action over which the federal court already has original jurisdiction. The statute does not provide a basis for removing claims merely because they are related to a separate federal action.
The court also emphasized that the party seeking removal bears the burden of showing that removal is proper, and that the court independently must determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. If jurisdiction is lacking before final judgment, the case must be remanded to state court.
Order
The court ordered Do to show cause—that is, to explain—why the action should not be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Do had to respond in writing by September 17, 2020, and Howell could reply by October 1, 2020. The court continued the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss to October 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
The opinion did not itself state that the case was remanded, and it did not decide the merits of Howell’s negligence claim. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order on September 3, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.