King v. Praxair Distribution, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-07817
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In King v. Praxair, Judge Donato ordered Praxair to explain whether Whaley’s citizenship supports federal jurisdiction before deciding remand.
Praxair must provide the court with additional information about Whaley’s citizenship and federal jurisdiction. The ruling also affects King, Whaley, and the other parties because the case might be returned to California Superior Court, but no remand was ordered in this opinion.
What happened
King v. Praxair Distribution, Inc. began in California Superior Court, where pro se plaintiff Troy King alleged state discrimination and retaliation claims related to the termination of his employment by Praxair. Praxair removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The court questioned whether the parties’ citizenship was adequately established. The complaint identified King as living and working in California, while Praxair’s filings described Whaley as residing in Texas and as a United States citizen. The court explained that residence is not always the same as citizenship and that citizenship must be determined when the lawsuit begins.
Judge Donato ordered Praxair to file a written response explaining why the case should not be returned to California Superior Court because of a possible lack of federal jurisdiction concerning Whaley’s citizenship. The order required a response by July 19, 2021; it did not itself remand the case or decide the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims.
The detailed version
- King v. Praxair Distribution, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-07817
- James Donato
- July 1, 2021
Background
Pro se plaintiff Troy King filed a complaint in California Superior Court asserting various California discrimination and retaliation claims connected to the termination of his employment by Praxair Distribution, Inc. Praxair removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on diversity jurisdiction. King did not challenge the removal.
The court also addressed magistrate judge jurisdiction. King did not return the clerk’s form stating whether he consented to or declined that jurisdiction. Based on the record, the court treated King as having declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and stated that it would retain the case.
Jurisdictional concern
The court required more information about subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Diversity jurisdiction requires diversity of citizenship, and residence does not necessarily establish citizenship or domicile. The complaint stated that King lived and worked in California, and Praxair’s removal filing agreed that King was a California citizen. The filings described Whaley as residing in Texas and, in a declaration, as a citizen of the United States, but the court found that this did not adequately identify Whaley’s state citizenship.
The court also noted that a party’s domicile for diversity purposes is determined when the lawsuit is filed, and it was unclear whether the removal filing properly addressed that timing requirement. Because Praxair removed the case, Praxair bore the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction was proper.
Order and effect
The court ordered Praxair to show cause in writing why the case should not be remanded to California Superior Court as having been removed without jurisdiction concerning Whaley’s citizenship. The response was due July 19, 2021. The order did not itself remand the case and did not decide the merits of King’s discrimination or retaliation claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.