* Afterexaminingthebriefsandrecord,wehaveconcludedthatoralargumentisunnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandrecord.SeeF ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

# United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuitChicago,Illinois60604
SubmittedDecember16,2010 *

DecidedDecember16,2010

Before
JOHNL.COFFEY,CircuitJudge
JOELM.FLAUM,CircuitJudge
ANNCLAIREWILLIAMS,CircuitJudge

No.102150
BETTIEPULLENWALKER, PlaintiffAppellant ,

v.
ROOSEVELTUNIVERSITY,etal., DefendantsAppellee s. AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,EasternDivision.

No.09C5426
JohnW.Darrah,Judge

.

ORDERBettiePullenWalkerfiledthisbreachofcontractsuitagainstRooseveltUniversity,theuniversity’sBoardofTrustees,andseveralo fitscurrentandformeremployees.PullenWalkerclaimsthatthedefendantsbreacheda nimpliedcontractgoverningthetermsofherenrollmentwhentheuniversityexpelledherfrom adoctoralprogramin2001.Herlatestaction,theseventhinaseriesofsuitsarisingfromtheexpulsion,wasbroughtinstatecourtbutremovedbythedefendantsontheassertedbasis thatitstatesafederalclaimunderTitleNONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITIONTobecitedonlyinaccordancewithFed.R.App.P. 32.1No.102150 Page2
IXoftheEducationAmendmentActof1972,see20U.S.C.§1681(a).Thedefendantsthenmovedtodismissthecomplaintonthegroundofclaimpreclusion.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotion,andPullenWalkerappeals,arguingthatthedefendantsimproperlyremovedthesuit.PullenWalkerfashionedhercomplaintasa“refiling”ofabreachofcontractactionshebroughtinstatecourtagainstthesamedefendantsin2005.Thedefendantshadremovedthatcase,too,butafterconcluding thatthecomplaintraisednofederalquestion,thedistrictcourtremandedthesuitt ostatecourt,wherePullenWalkervoluntarilydismissedit.Thecurrentcomplaint,captioned“Plaintiff’scomplaintfiledwithinoneyearofvoluntarydismissal,”isPullenWalker’sattemptt oresurrecther2005case;itusesthesamecasenumberasthe2005complaint,andoverthecourseofits15pagesallegesthesamefactualdetailsandlegaltheories,whichboildown toaclaimthatPullenWalkerwasdeniedthebenefitsofanimpliedcontractwhen theuniversityexpelledheronfalsecharges,afterashaminvestigation,andinviolationofitsownpolicies.ThecomplaintidentifiestwoIllinoisstatutesasprovidingacauseofaction,see735 I LL

. C OMP

. S TAT .5/13207;815I LL

. C OMP

. S TAT .505/1,andrefersrepeatedlytoIllinoiscontractlawand,morebroadly,thecontractualrelationshipbetweenauniversityanditsstudents.Theonlyreferencetofederallawcomesonpageeight,andreadsasfollows:Congressenactedlegislation(1972)forprotectionofstudentsrightsineducationacrosslevelsthatrequiresinstitutionstoabidebythepolicyorstandardstheythemselvesestablish.ThismandatediffersfromtheSupremeCourtrulingwhichonlyaddressestherightsofwomenineducation.TheenactmentbyCongressstatesinrelevantpart:NopersonintheUnitedStatesshallonthebasisofsexbeexcludedfromparticipationin,bedenied thebenefitsof,orbesubjectedtodiscriminationunderanyeducationprogramoractivityreceivingfederalassistance.20U.S.C.§1681etseq.20.Alwaysfacingthevagariesofsocietybasedongender,race,andage,theplaintiffhaspersistedinthislegislationwithfaiththatthisidealwillstand,andtopreserveacherishedlegacyasanalumnaeoftheuniversity.Theplaintiffhasenduredwithfaiththatjusticewillprevail.Onthebasisofthislanguagealone,thedefendantsremovedtheactiontodistrictcourt.ThenoticeofremovalassertsthatPullenWalkerclaimsdiscriminatoryexpulsionunder20U.S.C.§1681(a).PullenWalkerdisputed thatcontentioninamotiontoremand,whichshemislabeledasa“motiontoanswe rdefendants’reply.”SheexplainedthatsheNo.102150 Page3meantforhersuittobearefilingofher 2005complaint,whichraisesnofederalissue,onlyastatelawcontractclaim.Thedistrictcourtgranted themotioninabriefminuteorderwithoutmentioningsubjectmatterjurisdictionorgivingeffecttothesubstanceofthedocument,whichconcludeswithPullenWalker’srequestthatthedistrictcourt“grantRemand”tothestatecourt.Inalaterdecision thedistrictcourtaddressedthemeritsandgrantedthedefendants’motiontodismissonthebasisofresjudicata.PullenWalkermaintainsonappealthathercasebelongsinstatecourt.AlthoughsheadmitstoraisingTitleIXclaimsinprevioussuits,sheinsiststhatthisactioninvolvesnofederalquestion,andissimplyarefilingofher 2005breachofcontractclaim,which,shenotes,wasdeemedbyafederalcourt tosoundonlyinstatelaw.Congressauthorizestheremovalofanycivilactionbroughtinstatecourtoverwhichfederalcourtshaveoriginaljurisdiction.See28U.S.C.§1441(a);Hukicv.AuroraLoanServ .,588F.3d420,427(7thCir.2009).Whentheassertedbasisofremovalisafederalquestion,28U.S.C.§1331,thecomplaintmustestablishthat federallawcreatesarighttorelieforthatarighttoreliefturnsontheresolutionofafederalquestion.SeeFranchiseTaxBd.v.Constr.LaborersVacationTrust ,463U.S.1,1011(1983);Hartv.WalMartStores,Inc., Assoc.HealthandWelfarePlan ,360F.3d674,678(7thCir.2004).Thefederalgroundassertedtoestablishjurisdictionmustbemorethanincidentaltoastatelawclaim,seeTheFairv.KohlerDie&SpecialtyCo. ,228U.S.22,25(1913);Johnsonv.Orr,551F.3d564,570(7thCir.2008);Williamsv.AztarIndianaGamingCorp. ,351F.3d294,298(7thCir.2003),andtheincantationofafederalstatutewillnotautomaticallytriggerfederaljurisdiction,seeHoweryv.AllstateIns. Co. ,243F.3d912,91718(5thCir.2001); Rains v.CriterionSys.,Inc. ,80F.3d339,34344(9thCir.1996).TheremovalofPullenWalker’scomplaintwasimproper,andthedistrictcourterredinnotremandingthelawsuittostatecourt. Areasonablereadingofthecomplaintconfirmsthatthisisacontractdisputewithnobasisinfederallaw.Thecomplaintisdevotedexclusivelytothefactualdetailssurroundingtheallegedbreach:themanufacturedviolationsoftheconductcode,theshaminvestigation,thearbitraryexpulsion.Thebreachofcontractclaimneitherincorporatesanelemento ffederallawnorturnsontheresolutionofafederalquestion.ThementionofTitleI Xisfleeting,vague,anduntetheredfromfactsthatcouldsupportafindingofdiscrimination.Atmostthereferenceisanappealtopublicpolicyprinciplesembodiedbythestatute,butthatisnotthesameasinvokingtheprovisionasarighttorelief.SeeRains ,80F.3dat34344(explainingthatcomplaintdrawingonfederalstatuteasasourceofpublicpolicydidnotraisefederalquestion).HadPullenWalkerraisedafederalissue,hercomplaintpresumablywouldhaveborecloserresemblancetohertwopreviousTitle IXclaims,inwhichthefederalquestionNo.102150 Page4wasconspicuousandwellpleaded.Forinstance,herfifthsuit,afivecountcomplaintfiledinfederalcourtwiththehelpofcounsel,assertse arlyonthatthesuitseeksreliefunderTitleIXfordiscriminatoryexpulsion,andidentifiesasone ofthecounts“violationofTitleIX.”Complaintat15,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv. , 2006WL1843364(N.D.Ill.June28,2006).Likewisewithhersixthsuit,aproseaction filedinfederalcourt,whichassertsthat“thefederalquestionarisesinthiscaseagainstdiscriminationbyRooseveltUniversity,”andgoesonnotonlytociteTitleIX,but toallegefactssupportingaviolationofthestatute,specifically“discriminationbasedonsexjustifiedbymanufacturingafalse...sexistcharge.”Complaintat2,PullenWalkerv.RooseveltUniv. ,No.08C2299,(N.D.Ill.May8,2008).Contrastthecomplaintinthiscase,whichfocusesexclusivelyonhercontractualrelationshipwiththeuniversity,whichcontainsonlyapassingreferencetoTitleIX,andwhichfailstodrawanexusbetweenthefederalstatuteandanallegationofdiscrimination.WeVACATEthejudgmentofthedistrictcourtandREMANDwithinstructionsthatthecaseberemandedtostatecourt.