Mateo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Background

Rodolfo Lazaro III Mateo worked at Home Depot from 1997 through 2022 and held several positions, including Plumbing Supervisor, Stock and Inventory Manager, and PRO Commercial Account Sales Associate. Home Depot terminated him on January 5, 2022, after Michael Chagoya accused him of misusing PRO rewards information during a customer transaction. Greg Johnson called Mateo to the human resources department, where the accusation was made. Mateo believed that his age, national origin, race, and/or ethnicity played a significant role in his termination.

Mateo filed the action in Alameda County Superior Court on December 30, 2022, against Home Depot, Johnson, and Chagoya. The opinion identifies claims including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, age discrimination, race and/or national-origin discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination. The third and fourth causes of action cited both federal statutes—the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII—and California law, including California Government Code section 12940(a) and Article I, section 8 of the California Constitution.

Home Depot removed the action to federal court on April 3, 2023, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the federal discrimination statutes and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Mateo moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court, and requested attorney’s fees and costs related to the removal.

Remand Analysis

The court explained that a defendant may remove a state-court action only when the action could originally have been filed in federal court. The defendant bears the burden of showing that removal is proper, and doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand.

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a prior related proceeding, which held that referring to a federal statute does not necessarily turn a state-law claim into a federal claim. A plaintiff may choose to bring a state-law claim even when the same facts could support a federal claim.

The court found that Mateo’s complaint was confusing because it referred to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII while also stating that the claims arose under California law and the California Constitution. Considering the complaint as a whole, the court found that a fair reading suggested Mateo intended to rely on state law. The court therefore resolved the ambiguity in favor of remand.

Fees and Costs

Mateo requested $3,250 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court stated that an award under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is discretionary. It declined to award fees and costs because the federal-law references in Mateo’s complaint gave rise to Home Depot’s notice of removal and to the remand motion.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to remand and remanded the matter to Alameda County Superior Court. It denied the request for attorney’s fees and costs. The court did not decide whether Mateo’s underlying discrimination or other claims were legally or factually valid.