Harrell v. California State University
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-02210
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Harrell v. California State University, Judge Freeman denied Joshua Harrell’s motion to return his case to state court because federal claims supported removal.
Joshua Harrell and the defendants in the lawsuit. The motion to remand was denied, so the case remains in federal court.
What happened
Joshua Harrell sued the Board of Trustees of the California State University and several university employees in state court, asserting federal and state claims based on two incidents and related administrative proceedings.
The defendants moved the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. The court found that several claims expressly relied on the Constitution or federal statutes, including claims involving due process, disability discrimination, protected speech, retaliation, and unlawful arrest. It also found that the related state-law claims could remain under supplemental jurisdiction. The court rejected Harrell’s argument that claims involving state education rights could not be removed.
The court denied Harrell’s motion to remand, meaning the case will remain in federal court. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on August 9, 2023.
The detailed version
- Harrell v. California State University · No. 5:23-cv-02210
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
Joshua Harrell, identified as a student at San Jose State University, sued the university and multiple university employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The complaint asserted thirteen claims arising from incidents on April 20, 2022, and June 3, 2022, and from related administrative proceedings. The claims included conversion; deprivation of property without due process; disability discrimination; retaliation; wrongful use of administrative proceedings; unlawful arrest; unreasonable search and seizure; education-related claims; equal-protection and contract claims; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on federal-question jurisdiction. Harrell then moved to remand, which would have returned the case to state court.
Court’s reasoning
Federal-question jurisdiction generally exists when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. The court determined that several claims were expressly based on federal law, including:
- deprivation of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; - disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act; - retaliation for activity protected by the First Amendment; - retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a); and - unlawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that it clearly had federal-question jurisdiction over those claims. It further held that it had supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—because those claims arose from the same facts as the federal claims.
Harrell argued that his claims involving state education rights could not be removed under the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected that argument, explaining that claims involving state education rights are not among the categories of actions that federal law specifically makes nonremovable. The court also noted that, even if those claims had been nonremovable, federal law would have allowed removal of the action based on the federal claims, followed by severance and remand of the nonremovable claims.
Disposition
The court denied Harrell’s motion to remand and terminated ECF 16. The order did not remand the case or any claims to state court. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.