Yoon v. Norman City of

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JULIA YOON, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NORMAN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-804-D
(Case Remanded to Cleveland
County District Court, CJ-25-
1114)
ORDER
Plaintiff 	filed 	this 	action 	against 	Defendant 	alleging 	claims 	of 	employment
discrimination in state court [Doc. Nos. 1-3]. As previously noted, “federal courts
unquestionably ‘have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.’” Havens v. Colo.
Dep’t of Corrs., 897 F.3d 1250, 1260 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). Pursuant to this obligation, and Defendant questioning this Court’s
jurisdiction,1 the Court directed the parties to show cause within 14 days why this action
should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Doc. No. 10].
“Because the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited, ‘there is a presumption against
our jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.’”
1 Defendant filed its Second Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support on August 15, 2025
[Doc. No. 7]. Plaintiff filed a response [Doc. No. 8] to which Defendant replied [Doc. No.
9]. In its reply, Defendant questioned whether this Court still has subject matter jurisdiction
over this case because Plaintiff appeared to drop her claims based on federal law [Doc. No.
9, at 4].
Case 5:25-cv-00804-D Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Marcus v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Penteco
Corp. v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff initially asserted five causes of action against Defendant, including both
state and federal claims [Doc. No. 1-3]. Defendant timely removed the case to federal court
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [Doc. No. 1]. Plaintiff
filed her Amended Complaint on August 15, 2025, but only asserted three causes of action
all based on state law [Doc. No. 6].
In response to the Court’s Show Cause Order, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff
abandoned her causes of action based on federal law leaving only claims based on state
law [Doc. No. 11]. Because of this, Defendant argues that this Court no longer has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case and should remand it to the state court. Id. Plaintiff did not
respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint no longer alleges claims that
arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required for federal
question jurisdiction. Because the Court finds that no factual basis for subject matter
jurisdiction is apparent from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 6], the Court will
remand this action to the state court for further proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to the District
Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The Clerk of Court shall mail a certified copy of
this Order to the clerk of the District Court of Cleveland County.
Case 5:25-cv-00804-D Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of January, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00804-D Document 12 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3