Howell v. Do
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-04897
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Howell v. Do: Judge Corley remanded Howell’s negligence case to state court because federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking.
Natalia Howell’s negligence action against Andrew Do was returned to Alameda Superior Court, and the federal case was ordered closed after remand.
What happened
Howell v. Do involved Natalia Howell’s negligence lawsuit against her former supervisor, Andrew Do, originally filed in Alameda Superior Court. Do moved the case to federal court, relying on federal supplemental jurisdiction because Howell had a related federal employment-discrimination case.
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction applies to additional claims within a case where the federal court already has original jurisdiction; it does not allow removal based only on a separate related lawsuit. The complaint did not present a federal question, and the opinion does not identify a basis for diversity jurisdiction.
The court remanded the action to Alameda Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Do conceded that federal jurisdiction was lacking, Howell did not oppose remand, and Judge Corley ordered the federal clerk to close the case after remand.
The detailed version
- Howell v. Do · No. 3:20-cv-04897
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 1, 2020
Background
Natalia Howell filed a negligence action against Andrew Do in Alameda Superior Court in December 2019. The opinion identifies Do as Howell’s former supervisor. In July 2020, Do removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Howell’s state-law claims were related to a separate federal employment-discrimination action.
Howell also had a related state-court action against Garden of Eden, identified in the opinion as Do’s current employer and Howell’s former employer. That action was likewise removed to federal court. The related cases were connected to Howell’s federal employment-discrimination action against Garden of Eden and Do.
Jurisdictional Analysis
A defendant may remove a state-court action only when the federal court has original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction can include diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires diverse citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy, or federal-question jurisdiction, which requires the complaint itself to assert a claim based on federal law. A federal defense or anticipated federal issue does not create federal-question jurisdiction.
The court concluded that the complaint did not present a federal question. It also explained that supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 applies only to additional claims within a civil action over which the federal court already has original jurisdiction. Section 1367 does not authorize removal merely because the removed claims are related to a separate federal action. Do conceded that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and Howell did not oppose remand.
Disposition
The court REMANDED the action to the Alameda Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The order disposed of docket entries 14 and 15 and directed the clerk to close the federal case upon remand. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.