The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VEEVA SYSTEMS INC., et al., Case No. 21-cv-07749-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
v. MOTION TO REMAND
IQVIA INC., Re: Dkt. No. 9
Defendant.
The plaintiffs’ motion to remand is granted. District courts may exercise jurisdiction over
“civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “It is not
enough that the plaintiff alleges some anticipated defense”—a federal question must instead
appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley,
211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). The complaint in this case does not arise under federal law. It seeks
declaratory relief relating to non-compete agreements signed by a former IQVIA employee and
asserts two causes of action under California law. Because a federal question does not appear on
the face of the complaint, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The defendant argues that because the plaintiffs invoke the Commerce Clause, their
complaint raises a federal constitutional question. The complaint alleges that California law
precludes enforcement of the non-compete agreements. And it asserts that to the extent other
state laws “would validate or enforce” the agreements, they “would, as applied to the present
dispute, violate the dormant Commerce Clause.” Those allegations are not enough to confer
jurisdiction. Were IQVIA to seek enforcement of its agreements, the constitutional question
would arise only if the plaintiffs asserted certain defenses. Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 339 U.S. 667, 672 (1950). IQVIA and its counsel surely know this. After removing this case
on October 4, 2021, IQVIA filed suit in the District of New Jersey, asserting that Veeva and its
former employee breached the non-compete agreements. JQVIA Inc. v. Veeva Systems, Inc. and
Peter Stark, 2021 WL 5578737, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2021) (dismissing the complaint under
the first-filed rule). Along with those mine-run state law claims, it sought declaratory relief that
applying California law to the dispute would run afoul of the Commerce Clause. See id. Just as
the constitutional issue arose only in anticipation of a potential defense in the New Jersey case,
the same goes here: “if, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment procedure, the federal
claim would arise only as a defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking.” Franchise
Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 16 (1983) (quotations and
citation omitted).
Nor does the complaint “necessarily raise a stated federal issue” that is “actually disputed
and substantial.” Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing,
545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). The state laws referenced in the complaint might not, for example,
support enforcement of the non-compete agreements, in which case a court might not ever reach
the constitutional question.
It is difficult to understand how IQVIA and its counsel could think it would be
appropriate to remove this case. There was clearly no basis for it. The clerk shall remand the
matter to the Alameda County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2021
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge