Williams v. United Airlines, Inc.

BACKGROUND

Anthony L. Williams worked at United Airlines’s Oakland Maintenance Facility from 1989 until his termination in 2003. His direct supervisor was Ron King.

In September 2004, Williams filed a pro se complaint against United, alleging retaliatory discrimination under the WPP and three state law tort claims. He claimed that United terminated him in retaliation for a dispute related to an alleged safety violation. The district court exercised jurisdiction over the federal claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supple- mental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Williams’s retal- iatory discrimination claim was dismissed on summary judgment, and his state law claims were dismissed under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On appeal, United does not challenge the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we are “obliged to raise questions of the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Baux- ites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982) (“[T]he consent of the parties is irrelevant, principles of estoppel do not apply, and a party…