Barone v. Yazam — Federal claims support removal; court orders briefing on severing state claims

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Roger Barone sued Yazam, Inc., doing business as Empower, and Checkr, Inc. in Texas state court. His petition included four claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and additional state-law claims arising from the same alleged conduct.

Checkr removed the action, asserting federal-question jurisdiction over the FCRA claims and diversity jurisdiction. Barone did not contest removal of the federal claims. Instead, he asked the court to find that diversity jurisdiction had not been established and to sever and remand the state-law claims.

The Court’s Holding

The court determined that federal-question jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Barone’s complaint asserted FCRA claims that were not frivolous or insubstantial. That independent basis for jurisdiction was sufficient, so the court found it unnecessary to decide whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were also satisfied.

The court further concluded that it had the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It did not, however, finally decide Barone’s request to sever and remand those claims. Instead, it ordered defendants to brief the issue by September 17, 2026, and Barone to reply by September 24, 2026, while observing that severance appeared unlikely because the federal and state claims were closely interconnected.

Key Takeaways

• Nonfrivolous FCRA claims appearing on the face of the complaint supplied federal-question jurisdiction and supported removal.
• Because federal-question jurisdiction independently existed, the court did not decide whether diversity jurisdiction had been established.
• The court deferred ruling on severance and remand of the state-law claims, but noted that their factual overlap with the federal claims weighed against splitting the case.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates that a plaintiff generally cannot defeat federal jurisdiction over an entire removed action merely by challenging diversity when the complaint independently presents viable federal claims. Those claims may also bring factually related state claims within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

At the same time, jurisdictional power does not automatically resolve whether a federal court should retain supplemental claims. The court must consider the statutory and common-law factors, including judicial economy, fairness, comity, and the risk of improperly dividing closely connected claims.