Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-03459
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association, Judge Tigar remanded the case because federal jurisdiction was lacking.
The case’s parties—Tracy Tuens, U.S. Bank National Association, Oliveira, and the other defendants—are affected because the case returns to San Francisco County Superior Court.
What happened
Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association began in San Francisco County Superior Court and was moved to federal court by the defendants. They argued that federal diversity jurisdiction existed because Tracy Tuens’s complaint did not state a valid claim against defendant Oliveira.
The federal court had previously found that Tuens could plausibly add facts supporting her claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. After the defendants responded to the court’s order asking why the case should not be returned to state court, the court found that their response did not change its reasoning.
The court ruled that the defendants had not shown a basis for federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to San Francisco County Superior Court. Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the clerk to close the federal case file.
The detailed version
- Tuens v. U.S. Bank National Association · No. 4:20-cv-03459
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
The case began in San Francisco County Superior Court. The defendants removed it to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. They argued that Tracy Tuens’s complaint did not state a valid claim against defendant Oliveira.
On October 5, 2020, the federal court ordered the defendants to show cause—meaning to explain why the case should not be sent back to state court. The court had previously found that Tuens could plausibly allege additional facts supporting claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The proposed facts concerned allegedly hostile, belittling, condescending, and dismissive conduct by Oliveira from Tuens’s return from leave through her termination.
Ruling
The defendants filed a response on October 19, 2020. The court concluded that the response did not change its earlier reasoning or conclusion. It held that the defendants had failed to show cause and that the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
The court therefore remanded the case to the San Francisco County Superior Court and ordered the clerk to close the federal file. The opinion addressed the court’s jurisdiction and the proper forum; it did not decide the underlying employment claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.