Bearden v. PNS Stores, Inc.
Decision Date | 31 May 1995 |
Docket Number | No. CV-S-94-397-HDM-(RJJ).,CV-S-94-397-HDM-(RJJ). |
Citation | 894 F. Supp. 1418 |
Parties | Jack BEARDEN and Cindy Bearden, Plaintiffs, v. PNS STORES, INC., a California corporation dba MacFrugal's Bargains, Close-Outs, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Randall M. Rumph, Shinehouse & Duesing, Las Vegas, NV, for plaintiffs.
Stephanie M. Smith, & Elissa F. Cadish, Jolley, Urga, Wirth & Woodbury, Las Vegas, NV, for defendant.
This matter was submitted to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs' Motion For Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). (# 23).1
Plaintiffs, Jack and Cindy Bearden (the Beardens), originally filed this action in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada. The Beardens brought several claims for relief including a state tort action for retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim.
On April 29, 1994, Defendant, PNS Stores (PNS), removed this action to federal court pursuant to the federal diversity jurisdiction provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Over the next six months, both parties filed various pleadings with this court. In particular, the Beardens filed an amended complaint, a joint status report, a motion to strike affirmative defenses and submitted numerous interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the Defendant.
On October 21, 1994, the Beardens filed this motion to remand (# 23) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), which provides that a civil action arising under the workers' compensation laws of a state may not be removed to federal court. The Beardens assert that Section 1445(c) applies to the instant case because their retaliatory discharge claim arises under Nevada's workers' compensation laws. PNS opposes this motion, arguing that: 1) section 1445(c) does not apply because the Beardens' claim of retaliatory discharge does not arise under the workers' compensation laws of Nevada; 2) the Beardens waived their right to remand by failing to bring this motion within the 30-day limit prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); and 3) the Beardens waived their right to remand by "purposefully availing" themselves of this federal court. Both parties also seek an award for attorneys' fees and costs.
The Beardens argue that their retaliatory discharge claim arises under Nevada's workers' compensation laws and that removal is therefore improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). PNS disagrees, arguing that section 1445(c) is inapplicable because retaliatory discharge is a state tort claim independent from Nevada's workers' compensation statute.
Section 1445(c) provides that:
A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen's compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.
The phrase "arising under," as used in section 1445(c), has been broadly defined to include all actions which are part of a state's workers' compensation scheme. Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., 931 F.2d 1086, 1092 (5th Cir.1991); Thompson v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 797 F.Supp. 618, 620 (W.D.Tenn.1992). This broad definition has been adopted to further "Congress's intent that `all cases under a state's workers' compensation scheme remain in state court.'" Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 620, citing Jones, 931 F.2d at 1092. Thus, "it is clear that where a cause of action is specifically enumerated in a state's workmen's compensation statute, it `arises under'" that state's workmen's compensation laws. Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 620.
A more difficult question arises however, where, as in the instant case, the retaliatory discharge action has not been explicitly provided for in the workmen's compensation statute, but, rather, has been "judicially recognized" in order to give effect to the statute. In such cases, the vast majority of district courts have held that the retaliatory discharge claim does, indeed, "arise under" the state's workmen's compensation law. See e.g., Jones, 931 F.2d at 1092; Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 619-24; Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc., 708 F.Supp. 144 (E.D.Tex.1989); Kilpatrick v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc., 708 F.Supp. 1241 (N.D.Ala.1989); Orsini v. Echlin, Inc., 637 F.Supp. 38 (N.D.Ill.1986); Alexander v. Westinghouse Hittman Nuclear Inc., 612 F.Supp. 1118 (N.D.Ill.1985); Roberts v. Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 597 F.Supp. 311 (D.Md.1984); Thomas v. Kroger Co., 583 F.Supp. 1031 (S.D.W.Va.1984); Kemp v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 435 F.Supp. 1062 (W.D.Okla.1977). These rulings have been based upon the fact that, in each respective case, a "substantive right to be free from retaliatory discharge had been statutorily-created, even though the remedy was provided by the courts in the form of a tort rather than by a statutory provision creating a private right of action." Gonzales v. City of Mesa, 779 F.Supp. 1050, 1052-53 (D.Ariz. 1991), citing, Alexander, 612 F.Supp. at 1121, Kilpatrick, 708 F.Supp. at 1243, Wallace, 708 F.Supp. at 147. Therefore, although a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge may not be explicitly provided for under a workers' compensation statute, it may, nonetheless, arise under that statute if: 1) the statute prohibits retaliatory discharge; and 2) the private cause of action has been judicially recognized in order to give effect to the statute. See, Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 619-24.
A. Nevada's Workers' Compensation Law
Retaliatory discharge is a cause of action which arises under Nevada's workers' compensation statute. Nevada's workers' compensation statute prohibits retaliatory discharge; and, a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge has been recognized to give effect to this statutory prohibition.
The Nevada workers' compensation statute, entitled the "Nevada Industrial Act" (N.R.S. §§ 616.010-616.750), prohibits retaliatory discharge. Specifically, Subsection 616.265(1)(b) of the Act provides:
A contract of employment, insurance, relief benefit, indemnity, or any other device, having for its purpose the waiver or modification of the terms or liability created by this chapter is void.
(Emphasis added).
This provision is substantially similar to those found in other states (See Thompson, 797 F.Supp. at 621-22, citing, Clanton v. Cain-Sloan Co., 677 S.W.2d 441, 444-45 (Tenn.1984); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1973)) and prohibits the implementation of "any device" which would waive or modify an employer's obligation under the state's workers' compensation laws. Although Nevada courts have not explicitly defined the term "device," other jurisdictions with substantially similar statutes have held that this term encompasses retaliatory discharge.
The Nevada Supreme Court has specifically adopted the rationale and conclusion of Frampton in Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984). In doing so, the Nevada Supreme Court also recognized a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
Hansen, 100 Nev. at 63-64, 675 P.2d 394 (citations omitted).
Retaliatory discharge for filing a workmen's compensation claim is a device which, if freely used, would "nullify the basic purposes of Nevada's workmen's compensation system." The use of this device is clearly prohibited under N.R.S. § 616.265(1)(b).
Because retaliatory discharge is a device which would frustrate the worker's compensation scheme by effectively relieving an employer of its obligations under the statute, the Nevada Supreme Court has recognized a private cause of action as a remedy against its use.
...To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. Beaulieu of America, Inc.
...City of Mesa, 779 F.Supp. 1050 (D.Ariz.1991)8; Smith v. Union Carbide Corp., 664 F.Supp. 290 (E.D.Tenn.1987),9 with Bearden v. PNS Stores, Inc., 894 F.Supp. 1418 (D.Nev.1995);10 Husk v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 842 F.Supp. 895 (S.D.W.Va.1994)11; Thompson v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 797 ......
-
Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A.
...City of Mesa, 779 F.Supp. 1050 (D.Ariz.1991)8; Smith v. Union Carbide Corp., 664 F.Supp. 290 (E.D.Tenn.1987),9 with Bearden v. PNS Stores, Inc., 894 F.Supp. 1418 (D.Nev.1995)10; Husk v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 842 F.Supp. 895 (S.D.W.Va.1994)11; Thompson v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 797 ......
-
Wagner v. Chevron Oil Co., CV-N-03-0504-ECR.
...court has directly addressed, and we find no evidence of misconduct or bad faith on behalf of defendants. See Bearden v. PNS Stores, Inc., 894 F.Supp. 1418, 1424 (D.Nev.1995) (holding that award of attorneys' fees is inappropriate when removal was based on novel jurisdictional issue and no ......
-
Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton
... ... Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v ... ...