Davoodi v. Austin Independent School District
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11196
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Davoodi sued Austin Independent School District in Texas state court for national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he attached and “fully incorporated” his EEOC/TWC Charge alleging Title VII and TCHRA violations.
- AISD removed the case to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Charge and complaint asserted a federal (Title VII) claim.
- AISD filed a partial motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of all claims except Davoodi’s state-law discriminatory termination claim; Davoodi did not respond to the motion.
- The district court granted the partial motion but then sua sponte dismissed all of Davoodi’s claims, including the state-law discriminatory termination claim, without giving Davoodi notice or an opportunity to be heard on that dismissal.
- Davoodi appealed only the removal/jurisdiction ruling and the sua sponte dismissal of his state-law discriminatory termination claim; he did not challenge dismissal of his other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed suit | Davoodi: Complaint invoked only Texas law; attaching the EEOC Charge did not create a federal cause of action | AISD: Attachment and incorporation of the Charge (which alleges Title VII violations) created a federal question, so removal was proper | Court: Removal was proper; incorporation of the Charge made the complaint present a federal cause of action, giving federal-question jurisdiction |
| Whether district court could sua sponte dismiss Davoodi’s state-law discriminatory termination claim without notice | Davoodi: Dismissal was improper because court gave no notice or chance to respond | AISD: Davoodi waived review by not filing Rule 59(e) or otherwise raising the issue in district court | Court: Sua sponte dismissal without notice or opportunity to be heard was reversible error; Davoodi did not waive the argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Elam v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Energy Management Services, LLC v. City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2014) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limits of federal-court jurisdiction)
- Holland/Blue Streak v. Barthelemy, 849 F.2d 987 (5th Cir. 1988) (assertion of a federal cause of action confers subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lozano v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal permissible only if procedure is fair — generally requires notice and opportunity to respond)
- Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1986) (remanding where plaintiff had only one opportunity to state his case)
- Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (discussing circumstances where sua sponte dismissal may be acceptable)
- Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 238 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2001) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Independent School District, 44 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1995) (principles on determining whether complaint presents federal question)
- Jacobs v. National Drug Intelligence Center, 548 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008) (rule of orderliness regarding panel overruling)
Outcome: Affirmed removal and most of the judgment; vacated dismissal of the state-law discriminatory termination claim and remanded for further proceedings.