De Vera v. United Airlines, Inc.

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO DE VERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-07814-JSC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 19
Plaintiff, proceeding without attorney representation, filed this state-law employment
discrimination action in Alameda County Superior Court. He alleges he was fraudulently enticed
to take an early buy out and that when many years later he was rehired, Defendant retaliated
against him. Defendant removed the action to federal court alleging federal question and diversity
subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to
remand. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes oral argument
is not required, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES the motion to remand. Defendant has
established the Court at least has diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Remand
A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal
court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in
excess of $75,000. The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal
1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
Case 3:25-cv-07814-JSC Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
is proper,” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial
Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a
case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself it has
federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded to state court “if at any time before
final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).
Defendant’s notice of removal establishes the parties’ complete diversity: Plaintiff is a
California citizen and Defendant United Airlines is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois. (Dkt. No. 1
¶¶ 7-11.) The notice of removal also demonstrates the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
(Id. ¶¶ 12-18.)2 While Plaintiff’s motion to remand claims he only seeks to recover seniority as
opposed to back pay, his complaint alleges wrongful termination, and Defendant’s notice of
removal shows that termination occurred more than 15 years ago. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17; Dkt. No. 1-3 ¶¶
2-5.) Defendant’s evidence also shows Plaintiff worked full time at $31.37 an hour at the time of
his separation, which places over $1 million in lost earnings in controversy. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17; Dkt.
No. 1-3 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff does not dispute this evidence, (see generally Dkt. No. 19), and the cases
Plaintiff cites do not hold otherwise. In Oilund v. United Airlines, 2009 WL 112937, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 16, 2009), United removed only on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction.
Similarly, in Ayson v. United Airlines, No. C 21-6201 (C.D. Cal.), United removed on the grounds
of federal question jurisdiction. (Id. Dkt. No. 31.) Neither case suggests Defendant has not
established diversity jurisdiction here. So, the motion to remand is DENIED.
2 In his form complaint, Plaintiff does not check any box under the “remedies sought” section, but
Plaintiff identifies the case as Unlimited Jurisdiction, which the form complaint indicates as cases
where the “[a]mount demanded exceed[] $35,000.” (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5-7); see Cal. Code Civ. Pro
§§ 86(a) (if the demand in controversy is $35,000 or less, the case is a limited civil case), 88 (“A
civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil
case.”) Plaintiff also alleges causes of action for wrongful termination, age discrimination,
retaliation, and harassment, which usually entail monetary damages. Based on this, the Court
assumes Plaintiff is seeking at least some damages, despite his failure to include a specific prayer
for damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”)
Case 3:25-cv-07814-JSC Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
B. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on September 19, 2025. (Dkt. No.
12.) Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion. Since the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction of this action, it can and must decide Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As Plaintiff is
proceeding without attorney representation, the Court VACATES the December 4, 2025 hearing
on the motion to dismiss, and GRANTS Plaintiff until December 11, 2025 to file an opposition to
the motion to dismiss. Defendant may file a reply by December 18, 2025. The Court will advise
the parties if oral argument is required.
As Plaintiff is without representation by a lawyer, the Court directs his attention to the
Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on
the Court’s website located at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Plaintiff may also
contact the Legal Help Center for free assistance; he can make an appointment by calling 415-782-
8982 or emailing fedpro@sfbar.org.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 19.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2025
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-07814-JSC Document 30 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 3