Howell v. Garden of Eden
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-04901
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Howell v. Garden of Eden, Judge Corley ordered Garden of Eden to explain removal jurisdiction and postponed a dismissal hearing.
Natalia Howell and Garden of Eden; the court’s jurisdictional order also affected the timing of the pending motion-to-dismiss hearing.
What happened
In Natalia Howell v. Garden of Eden, Garden of Eden moved the negligence case from state court to federal court, relying on supplemental jurisdiction because related claims were pending in another federal case. The court questioned whether that was legally sufficient.
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction applies to claims within the same civil action as a claim already within federal jurisdiction, not to claims related to a separate action. It ordered Garden of Eden to explain why the case should not be returned to state court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Corley required Garden of Eden to respond by September 17, 2020, allowed Howell to reply by October 1, 2020, and continued the pending motion-to-dismiss hearing to October 15, 2020. The order did not itself remand the case.
The detailed version
- Howell v. Garden of Eden · No. 3:20-cv-04901
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
Natalia Howell filed a negligence action against her former employer, Garden of Eden, in Alameda County Superior Court in December 2019. Garden of Eden removed the case to the Northern District of California in July 2020, relying on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Howell also filed a separate action against her former supervisor, Andrew Do, and that action was removed as well. The two removed cases were related to Howell’s employment-discrimination action already pending in federal court against Garden of Eden and Do.
Jurisdictional Concern
Federal courts may hear a case removed from state court only when they have original jurisdiction, such as federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that the defendant seeking removal bears the burden of showing that removal is proper, and that the court must independently verify its subject-matter jurisdiction.
Garden of Eden’s notice of removal stated that Howell’s state-law claims were part of the same case or controversy as the related federal case. The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is limited to claims within a civil action over which the federal court already has original jurisdiction. It does not authorize removal based on claims related to a separate action. The court therefore questioned whether this case could remain in federal court.
Order
The court ordered Garden of Eden to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be remanded to Alameda County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Garden of Eden had to respond in writing by September 17, 2020, and Howell could reply by October 1, 2020. The court also continued the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss to October 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The order did not itself remand the case or rule on the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.