Soo

Soo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Good Law
73 F. Supp. 2d 1126·1999 WL 956487·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16041
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 8, 1999C 99-03585 CRBCalifornia1,906 words

Opinion

Opinion

Breyer, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On October 1, 1999, the Court heard oral argument regarding why this case should remain in federal court and not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. Having carefully considered the papers submitted by the parties, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court on May 24, 1999. The complaint alleges a single cause of action against both United Parcel Service (“UPS”) and Bob Herzog (“Herzog”) for retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). UPS removed the case to federal court on July 23, 1999 on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction. UPS contended that fed eral question jurisdiction was proper because the retaliation claim arose under and is preempted by the LMRA. UPS also contended that diversity jurisdiction was proper because plaintiff is a resident of California, UPS is a resident of Ohio and Georgia, and Herzog, although a resident of California, had not been served and, in any event, is a sham defendant whose residence has no affect upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.