Jenrett v. McPartlin

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00002
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MELISA JENRETT, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00002-APG-NJK

4 Plaintiff Order Remanding Case to State Court

5 v.

6 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendants Clark County School District, Sara Friedman, Paul Hernandez, Kevin 10 McPartlin, and David Monroe removed this action from state court on the basis of federal 11 question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Melisa Jenrett’s complaint did not appear to 12 present a federal question, so I order the defendants to show cause why this case should not be 13 remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 32. In their response to 14 that order, the defendants acknowledge that the complaint’s claims are couched in state law 15 terms. The defendants argue instead that removal “was a reasonable response to protect 16 i[themselves] from artful pleadings,” and that I nevertheless have subject matter jurisdiction over 17 this case. ECF No. 33 at 6. 18 The artful pleading doctrine prevents a plaintiff from disguising a federal claim as a state 19 law claim by “artfully pleading” the claim. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 20 1372 (9th Cir. 1987). But the artful pleading doctrine is “a narrow exception to the 21 straightforward rules of removal jurisdiction” that I may apply “only if the particular conduct 22 complained of is governed exclusively by federal law.” Id. (simplified). Put differently, the 23 artful pleading doctrine applies only where “the state court necessarily must look to federal law in passing on the claim.” /d. (citation omitted). For example, if a plaintiff’s antitrust claims could be brought under state law and the plaintiff does not invoke federal law, the case is not 3|/removable merely because it could theoretically be brought under federal antitrust law. See Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc., 908 F.2d 477, 480 (9th Cir. 1990); cf: 5|| Brennan v. Sw. Airlines Co., 134 F.3d 1405, 1409, 1412 (9th Cir.), amended sub nom. Brennan v. Sw. Airlines, 140 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that tax refund suit was properly removed 7\| where federal law provided “the exclusive remedy in tax refund suits”). 8 The complaint here states claims for defamation, “discrimination on a disable (sic),” and 9] negligence. ECF No. | at 8. Defamation and negligence are typical state law claims. The defendants contend that Jenrett’s discrimination claim is a federal law claim, citing to various 11]| federal civil rights statutes. But disability discrimination is not governed exclusively by federal 12||law, and a Nevada state court may apply Nevada law to this claim.! Jenrett’s award for damages may be capped at a certain amount by state law, but that does not bar her from claiming more 14|| damages in her complaint. Because Jenrett’s complaint does not necessarily rely on federal law, the artful pleading doctrine does not apply and I must remand this case to state court. 16 I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is remanded to the state court from which it was 17|| removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 18 DATED this 21st day of January, 2025. 19 □□□ “0 ANDREWP.GORDON. >] CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 | See, e.g., Nev. Const. art. I, § 24 (“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its political subdivisions on account of... disability... .”).