Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00167/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARISSA MALIGA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 06-0167 SBA

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

On November 3, 2005, Plaintiff Clarissa Maliga ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against defendant

University of San Francisco ("Defendant") in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of

San Francisco. Plaintiff's complaint alleges two causes of action against Defendant: (1) gender

discrimination in violation of California Government Code § 12940; and (2) retaliation in violation of

California Government Code § 12940. 

On January 10, 2006, Defendant removed the instant action to this Court on the basis of federal

question jurisdiction. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's causes of action arise under federal law.

Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claims are cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act. While this may be true, it is commonly recognized that the plaintiff is the master of her own

lawsuit. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even when a plaintiff

can maintain a claim on both state and federal grounds, she is entitled to ignore the federal question and

assert only the state law claims. Id. Further, the removal statute is to be strictly construed against

removal and any doubt is resolved in favor of remand. Id. As the removing party, Defendant bears a

heavy burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Id. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT on or before February 1, 2006, Defendant shall file a brief

in this Court showing cause why the instant case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Defendant's brief shall not exceed seven (7) pages and shall specifically include relevant

Case 4:06-cv-00167-SBA Document 5 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

authorities in support of its removal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff is granted leave to file a reply to Defendant's brief

no later than February 10, 2006. Plaintiff's brief is not to exceed seven (7) pages. Upon the filing of

Plaintiff's reply, the matter will be taken under submission and decided without oral argument, unless

the Court determines, after reviewing the parties' submissions, that argument would assist the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties are directed to immediately meet and confer

regarding this Court's Order to determine whether the issues identified in the Court's Order can be

resolved without the need for any further intervention by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/ 23/06 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00167-SBA Document 5 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2