Clarification to ALI question

Below is the clarified version of question 3 from the third ALI session. Added text is underlined.


Homer Simpson, a California citizen, sued his former employer, Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, in California state court. Springfield Nuclear Power Plant has a power plant in California, and is incorporated in Nevada, with its principal place of business also in Nevada. Homer alleged in his complaint that the Nuclear Power Plant failed to promote him and subjected him to harassment because of his love for doughnuts in violation of a federal statute called “The Doughnuts for Everyone Act.”  In addition to the harassment claim, Homer decided to file an additional claim against the Nuclear Power plant for an unrelated battery.  Homer alleged the battery claim arose when his boss Mr. Burns, a California citizen and president of the Nuclear Power Plant, rear-ended Homer in the company parking lot. Homer seeks $10,000 for the harassment claim and $100 for the battery claim. May the Nuclear Power Plant remove the case to federal district court in California?

  1. No, the federal district court cannot hear any part of this case on the merits because the case includes a state law claim.
  2. Yes, the Nuclear Power Plant may remove only the federal question part of the case to federal court.
  3. No, the Nuclear Power Plant may not remove the case to federal court because the Power Plant is a citizen of the state in which the federal court sits and the federal removal statute does not extend to such situations.
  4. Yes, the Nuclear Power may remove the entire case, but the federal court will be required to remand the battery claim to state court because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.