Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VEEVA SYSTEMS INC., et al., Case No. 21-cv-07749-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
v. MOTION TO REMAND
IQVIA INC., Re: Dkt. No. 9 Defendant.
The plaintiffs’ motion to remand is granted. District courts may exercise jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “It is not enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense”—a federal question must instead appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). The complaint in this case does not arise under federal law. It seeks declaratory relief relating to non-compete agreements signed by a former IQVIA employee and asserts two causes of action under California law. Because a federal question does not appear on the face of the complaint, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argues that because the plaintiffs invoke the Commerce Clause, their complaint raises a federal constitutional question. The complaint alleges that California law precludes…