Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A

District Court, N.D. California·Decided May 14, 2025·No. 4:23-cv-05378·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARNEICE KATHRINE HALL- Case No. 23-cv-05378-JST JOHNSON, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 REMAND v. 10 Re: ECF No. 114 CITIBANK, N.A., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Carneice Kathrine Hall-Johnson’s motion to remand this 14 action to state court. ECF No. 114. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without 15 oral argument, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and will grant the motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Hall-Johnson originally filed this action in California Superior Court, County of San 18 Francisco on August 11, 2023. ECF No. 1-1 at 3. She alleged that, when she tried to deposit a 19 $7,500 check into her account with Defendant Citibank, N.A., Citibank flagged the check as 20 fraudulent, opened an investigation, and closed Hall-Johnson’s account. Id. at 4. Hall-Johnson 21 further alleged that an individual “from Citibank Executive Officer [sic]” told her over the phone 22 that the decision to accuse her of filing a fraudulent check and close her account was made 23 because of her race. Id. at 6. Hall-Johnson’s original complaint asserted several state-law claims 24 as well as a claim for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 25 On October 20, 2023, Citibank removed the action to federal court based on federal 26 question jurisdiction arising from Hall-Johnson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim. ECF No. 1 at 2. Hall- 27 Johnson thereafter attempted to file an amended complaint on August 29, 2024, ECF No. 95, a 1 2024, ECF No. 99, and a second motion to remand on September 1, 2024, ECF No. 100. The 2 Court struck the first and second amended complaints because Hall-Johnson had not obtained 3 leave to file them, and the Court denied both motions to remand as moot. ECF No. 103. Hall- 4 Johnson then moved for leave to file an amended complaint, ECF No. 106, which the Court 5 granted, ECF No. 110. Hall-Johnson filed her amended complaint, ECF No. 111, on February 13, 6 2025. The amended complaint asserts exclusively state-law claims. 7 Hall-Johnson filed the instant motion to remand, ECF No. 114, on March 2, 2025. 8 Citibank opposes the motion, ECF No. 119, and Hall-Johnson has filed a reply. ECF No. 123. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction 11 or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). If the district court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, the action must 13 be remanded to state court. Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005). It is the 14 removing defendant’s burden to establish the basis for federal court jurisdiction. Nishimoto v. 15 Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 Hall-Johnson argues the Court does not have jurisdiction because the amended complaint 17 does not assert any federal claims. ECF No. 114 at 3–4. Citibank does not argue that the Court 18 has federal question jurisdiction but instead urges the Court to assert supplemental jurisdiction 19 over the action. ECF No. 119 at 2. The Court cannot do so. “When an amendment excises the 20 federal-law claims that enabled removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over 21 the related state-law claims. The case must therefore return to state court.” Royal Canin U.S.A., 22 Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25–26 (2025). Hall-Johnson’s amendment “excise[d] the 23 federal-law claims that enabled removal” of this action—namely, the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim— 24 and thus there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in this action. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court concludes it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the 3 Court hereby REMANDS the case to San Francisco County Superior Court. The Clerk shall close 4 || the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 6 Dated: May 14, 2025 7 JON S. TIGA 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A (Hall-Johnson v. CITIBANK, N.A) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.
546 U.S. 132 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA
582 F.3d 1039 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger
604 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 2025)