Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-2568,94-2568
• Citation: 58 F.3d 1238
• Parties: 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2732, 64 USLW 2039 Dean HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. SEQUENTIA, INC., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1238

58 F.3d 1238

149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2732, 64 USLW 2039

Dean HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. SEQUENTIA, INC., Appellee.

No. 94-2568.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 1995.

Decided June 28, 1995.

Paul Alan Levy, Washington, DC, argued (Thomas J. O'Brien, Raytown, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

Spencer M. Youell, Columbus, OH, argued (Brien Finuccane, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Dean Humphrey appeals from an interlocutory order entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and for remand to the Missouri state court from which this case was removed by defendant Sequentia, Inc. Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., No. 94-0295-CV-W-1 (W.D.Mo. May 17, 1994). For reversal, plaintiff argues that the district court lacked removal jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying his motion for remand because (1) his claim of retaliatory discharge is not preempted by Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, under Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988) (Lingle ), and (2) this action arises under Missouri's workers' compensation laws and therefore is nonremovable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1445(c). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the issue of whether removal was proper is now moot because plaintiff has since amended his complaint to include federal claims under the LMRA alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for remand and remand to the district court with directions to remand to the state court from which the case was removed.

I. Background

Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, was injured on the job on February 21, 1994. He took a disability leave from February 21, 1994, through March 21, 1994, during which he received workers' compensation benefits. On the day he returned to work, March 22, 1994, plaintiff allegedly made a racial remark to a truck driver, which was reported to his supervisor. That same day, with his union representative present, plaintiff was suspended pending an investigation.

Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit in Missouri state court seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to obtain, among other things, reinstatement to his former employment, on grounds that defendant had discriminated against him in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 287.780 (1994). ¹ Plaintiff denies making the alleged racial remark and claims that the truck driver incident was fabricated as a pretext to allow defendant to retaliate against him for exercising his rights under the Missouri workers' compensation laws. On March 24, 1994, the Missouri state court, ex parte, granted plaintiff a TRO and issued defendant a show cause order. On March 25, 1994, plaintiff's union initiated grievance procedures under the CBA on behalf of plaintiff.

On March 28, 1994, defendant removed plaintiff's state court action to federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), on grounds that plaintiff's claim is preempted by Sec. 301 of the LMRA because it seeks to enforce the CBA. Plaintiff moved for remand to state court and moved for injunctive relief similar to the TRO obtained in state court. The district court, in a single order, denied both motions. Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc., No. 94-0295-CV-W-1 (W.D.Mo. May 17, 1994) (order denying motion for remand and motion for injunctive relief). By notice dated June 15, 1994, plaintiff appealed the district court's order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a), (b). ²

While the parties were briefing the issues on appeal, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which was accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, in the district court. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiff's amended complaint includes federal claims under Sec. 301 of the LMRA in addition to his original claim of retaliatory discharge under Mo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 287.780. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the amended complaint clearly establishes federal jurisdiction, and thus the question of whether the removal to federal court was proper has become moot. Both the merits of the appeal and defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal are now before this court.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss the Appeal

First, we address defendant's motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. Defendant argues that once plaintiff amended his complaint to add federal claims under the LMRA, the district court clearly acquired jurisdiction over the LMRA claims, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), as well as the retaliatory discharge claim. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Thus, defendant maintains, the question of whether removal was proper has become moot. In response, plaintiff cites, among other cases, O'Halloran v. University of Washington, 856 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir.1988) (O'Halloran ), in which the Ninth Circuit exercised appellate jurisdiction, and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the state court, under procedural circumstances similar to those of the present case. In O'Halloran, the plaintiff sought review of the district court's denial of her motion to remand to state court, after a third-party defendant removed the third-party action and the plaintiff's original state court action to federal court, even though the third-party action involved only state claims. Id. at 1378, 1380-81. Although the district court did not certify the existence of a controlling question of law, the Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction over the plaintiff's interlocutory appeal of the remand order because it was accompanied by an appeal from a denial of injunctive relief. Id. at 1378-79. One day after the notice of appeal was filed, the plaintiff amended her complaint and realigned the parties, making the third-party defendant a defendant and alleging her federal claims against the former third-party defendant as well as the original defendant. Id. at 1378. Therefore, the complaint, as amended, established grounds for the third-party defendant to remove to federal court, even though that party should not have been able to remove prior to the amendment. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless held that the issue of whether removal to the federal court was proper had not become moot because the plaintiff did not voluntarily amend her complaint but rather had been ordered by the district court to do so. Id. at 1380.

In the present case, plaintiff argues that he, like the plaintiff in O'Halloran, had no choice but to amend his complaint, thereby creating a basis for federal jurisdiction. At the time he filed his motion for leave to amend, the district court had already ruled that his workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim was preempted by Sec. 301 of the LMRA; moreover, the district court had denied plaintiff's motion for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal and had ordered the parties to present a scheduling order for the disposition of the case. Thus, plaintiff argues, the district court presented him with a Hobson's choice. ³ Under the circumstances, his options were to amend his complaint to allege the federal LMRA claims or risk dismissal of the complaint and, consequently, preclusion of his federal claims under the doctrine of res judicata. ⁴

We agree with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion in O'Halloran that, "when a court orders the plaintiff to amend its complaint, doing so does not moot the question whether removal to the federal court was proper." 856 F.2d at 1380. In other words, where the removal of an action from state court to federal court may have been improper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), the subsequent amendment of the complaint so as to create a basis for removal jurisdiction does not render the removal issue moot if the amendment was ordered by the district court or was otherwise involuntary. In the present case, we hold that plaintiff's amendment of the complaint was involuntary for the reasons he cites. ⁵ We therefore hold that the question of whether removal was proper is not moot for purposes of this appeal. Defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

B. Merits of the Appeal

A defendant may remove an action from state court to the federal district court for the district in which the action is pending if the action is within the district court's original jurisdiction, unless an Act of Congress expressly provides otherwise. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a). In the present case, defendant removed plaintiff's state court action to federal district court on grounds that plaintiff's action was preempted by the LMRA because plaintiff was seeking to enforce, through injunctive relief, the terms of the "just cause" provision in the CBA. ⁶ In his motion for remand, plaintiff argued that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over his state court action for injunctive relief because his claim fell within the limited exception to federal preemption under Lingle, and (2) removal of plaintiff's action was expressly prohibited by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1445(c) ("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 district court denied plaintiff's motion for remand on grounds that (1) the exception to Sec. 301 preemption recognized in Lingle does not apply in the present case because plaintiff's claim is one for injunctive relief rather than damages, slip op. at 2, and (2) 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1445(c) does not apply in the present case because plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim is preempted by Sec. 301 of the LMRA and because plaintiff...