Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUI SEE TAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of California, DOLBY

LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL SERVICES,

INC., a California corporation incorporated in the

State of California, DOLBY LABORATORIES

LICENSING CORPORATION, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of New York doing

business in the State of California, DOLBY

LABORATORIES LICENSING

INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of California, and DOES 1

through 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03973 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REMAND

Asserting numerous causes of action stemming from alleged wrongful termination,

plaintiff now moves to remand to state court. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as federal-question

jurisdiction exists.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff commenced this action in San Francisco Superior Court on August 22, 2005. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action for: sexual discrimination, wrongful termination

of public policy, retaliation, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and deceit, and unfair business

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

practices under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Defendants removed

the action claiming federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b). Plaintiff now moves

for remand.

ANALYSIS

Removal under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) is permitted for actions involving a federal question

over which the district court would have had original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. 

The removing party always bears the burden of establishing removal is proper. Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1990). The “well-pleaded complaint rule”

provides that federal jurisdiction only exists when a federal question is presented on the face of

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal. 

Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936)(further noting that the federal

issue must not be “merely a possible or conjectural one”). Removal based on federal

question-jurisdiction is proper when the face of the claim raises an issue of federal law. 

See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). The plaintiff,

as “master of the complaint,” can have his action heard in state court “by eschewing claims

based on federal law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 385, 398–99 (1987). If only one

of several state claims satisfies the requirements for removal on federal-question grounds, then

any other purely state claims in the same complaint may also be determined by the federal

court under its supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1441(c).

Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that defendants “deprive[d] plaintiff of her

rights . . . to be free from sexual discrimination . . . as provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, Section 701 et seq., as amended 42 U.S.C. 20001 e [sic] . . .” (Compl. ¶ 33). 

Plaintiff indicates that a complaint was filed with the EEOC, and that “the EEOC issued a right

to sue letter” (Compl. ¶ 31). Defendants grounded removal based upon the preceding

language. Plaintiff contends that the above language does not allege a federal cause of action,

but rather is a mere reference to federal law provided as an illustration of public policy in

support of plaintiff’s sexual discrimination claim.

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In substantiation of the above proposition plaintiff cites to Rains v. Criterions Systems,

Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996). In Rains, the plaintiff brought a state court action against his

employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The plaintiff in his complaint

made reference to the California Constitution and Title VII to satisfy an element of his

wrongful termination action. Based upon this mention of Title VII the defendant removed the

matter to federal court. The plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded to state court. The

Ninth Circuit, in remanding the matter back to the state court, reasoned that the “invocation of

Title VII as a basis for establishing an element of a state law cause of action does not confer

federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff also invokes a state constitutional provision or a

state statute that can and does serve the same purpose.” Id. at 345 (emphasis added). The sole

reason for the plaintiff’s mention of Title VII in Rains was to satisfy the public policy

requirement of his state claim. Here, plaintiff is not using Title VII to show public policy

against sexual harassment.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains a clear invocation of Title VII. This can only be

construed as setting forth a cause of action under Title VII. District courts have original

jurisdiction over Title VII claims. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(3). As a result, removal based on

federal-question jurisdiction was proper as the face of plaintiff’s complaint raises an issue of

federal law. Consequently, remand would be inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 21 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 3