Lamar v. Home Depot

• Decision Date: 03 December 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12–0552–WS–C.
• Citation: 907 F.Supp.2d 1311
• Parties: Eula LAMAR, Plaintiff, v. The HOME DEPOT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

907 F.Supp.2d 1311

Eula LAMAR, Plaintiff,

v.The HOME DEPOT, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12–0552–WS–C.

United States District Court,

S.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

Dec. 3, 2012.

Eula M. Lamar, Chickasaw, AL, pro se.

Todd Neal Hamilton, Jason Matthew Langley, Jennifer W. Pickett, Smith, Spires & Peddy, Birmingham, AL, J. Walton Jackson, Maynard Cooper & Gale, Daniel Trice Stabler, Mobile, AL, for Defendants.

ORDER

WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion to remand. (Doc. 10). The parties have filed numerous briefs concerning the propriety of removal, (Docs. 1, 5–7, 10, 15–17), and the motion is ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the motion to remand is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The defendants removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The complaint contains four counts. Count One is brought under the Alabama Worker's Compensation Act for medical benefits. Counts Two, Three and Four are brought under Alabama common law for breach of contract, fraud and outrageous conduct.¹ The parties agree that removal of the worker's compensation claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and that this claim must be remanded. The question is whether the remaining claims must also be remanded.

DISCUSSION

“Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants....” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, “[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.” Id. § 1445(c). As the parties agree, Count One “aris[es] under the workmen's compensation laws of” Alabama but the remaining counts do not.² The plaintiff's motion thus requires consideration of the interplay between the two quoted statutory provisions.

The only published decision of the Eleventh Circuit known to have addressed the scope of a remand under Section 1445(c) is Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir.2000). The plaintiff in Reed brought in state court a claim for retaliatory discharge under the Alabama worker's compensation statute (“Section 25–5–11.1”), which the Court held to be a claim “arising under” the worker's compensation laws for purposes of Section 1445(c). Id. at 1060. The plaintiff also brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).³ The defendant removed based on the ADA claim “and possible diversity of citizenship as well.” Id. at 1058. The plaintiff sought remand of the entire case, id., but the lower court retained the case and granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. Id.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Section 1445(c) precluded jurisdiction over the worker's compensation claim. 206 F.3d at 1058. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the worker's compensation claim and that this claim therefore “must be remanded to state court.” 206 F.3d at 1061.⁴ The Court then proceeded to address the merits of the ADA claim, without separate explanation why it was not remanding that claim as well. Id. Earlier portions of the opinion, however, reflect the Court's reasoning.

In its preliminary statement summarizing its decision, the Reed Court said:

Because we conclude that claims brought pursuant to Alabama's statute barring retaliation for the filing of workers' compensation claims do arise under that state's workers' compensation laws, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Reed's retaliatory discharge claim. Reed's ADA claim, however, was properly before the district court.

206 F.3d at 1057. Thus, the ADA claim remained in federal court because it was properly removed there.

The Court later explained the mechanism by which the ADA claim was properly removed:

Defendants can remove civil actions over which the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction. See28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The federal district court would have had original jurisdiction over Reed's ADA claim because it arose under federal law. See28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal courts can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same case or controversy as the claim with original federal jurisdiction. See28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

A few actions, however, cannot be removed from state to federal court. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) bars the removal of claims from state court “arising under the workmen's compensation laws” of the forum state.

Id. at 1058. It is clear from the quoted material that the Court construed the ADA claim as properly removed under Section 1441(a). The inclusion of a non-removable worker's compensation claim in the same lawsuit did not render removal of the action improper under either that statute or Section 1445(c). Instead, the presence of the worker's compensation claim triggered Section 1445(c) as to only that claim and required remand of only that claim. Thus, “the limits on federal jurisdiction imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c)” served only to require that the worker's compensation claim “must be remanded to state court.” Id. at 1056, 1061.

It is important to note that the Reed Court did not base the propriety of removing and retaining the ADA claim on Section 1441(c).⁵ It is plain from the previous quotation that the Reed Court relied instead on Section 1441(a) to justify removal and retention of the federal claim. Although the Court also cited Section 1441(c), it did so only in the course of listing the different ways that removed state law claims unsupported by diversity can be properly retained in federal court.

Moreover, Section 1441(c) could have been in play in Reed only if the federal claim was “separate and independent” from the state claim. See note 5, supra. “Where both federal and state causes of actions are asserted as a result of a single wrong based on a common event or transaction, no separate and independent federal claim exists under section 1441(c).” In re: City of Mobile, 75 F.3d 605, 608 (11th Cir.1996). Section 1441(c) was not in play in Reed, because both his worker's compensation retaliation claim and his ADA claim were based on a single event—his termination. See note 3, supra. Since Section 1441(c) was not implicated, the Reed Court could not have relied on it sub silentio.

Some courts have determined that the retention of a federal claim despite remand of the worker's compensation claim under Section 1445(c) can be justified under Section 1441(c), and the Court agrees.⁶ But if retention of the federal claim depends on Section 1441(c) rather than on Section 1441(a), then a different rationale must be found for retaining a state claim despite remand of a worker's compensation claim, since Section 1441(c) is triggered only by a federal question under Section 1331 and not by diversity of citizenship under Section 1332. As noted, however, the Reed Court based the propriety of removing and retaining the ADA claim on Section 1441(a), not Section 1441(c).

“[T]he holding of a case is É comprised both of the result of the case and those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by which we are bound.” United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1253 n. 10 (11th Cir.2009) (internal quotes omitted). The result of Reed was retention of the federal claim despite remand of the worker's compensation claim. Necessary to this result was the conclusion that the federal claim was properly removed, and necessary to the conclusion that the federal claim was properly removed was an identification of a legal basis for proper removal. Thus, the Reed Court's identification of Section 1441(a) as the source of proper removal of the federal claim and for retention of that claim despite remand of the worker's compensation claim constitutes a holding.

Section 1441(a) authorizes removal of “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Section 1332(a) furnishes “original jurisdiction” over diversity actions with a threshold amount in controversy, so removal of a diversity action is accomplished through Section 1441(a). E.g., Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202, 1204 (11th Cir.2008). This case was removed based on diversity jurisdiction, and therefore removal was proper under Section 1441(a).⁷ Because Reed holds that, when removal is properly accomplished under Section 1441(a), the federal court is to remand the worker's compensation claim and retain the properly removed claims, it forecloses remand of the plaintiff's state law claims.

As the plaintiff points out, a number of trial courts have ruled that, when the worker's compensation claim is paired with no federal claim but with only state law claims, remand of the entire action is required.⁸ As only one of these cases originated within the Eleventh Circuit so as to be subject to Reed, the Court pays it special attention.

In Bryant v. Wausau Underwriters, 2008 WL 1808325 (M.D.Ala.2008), the Court concluded that “Reed can not be interpreted as authority for severing and remanding worker's compensation claims in cases that are removed under § 1332 (diversity) because Reed involved a case removed under § 1331 (federal question).” Id. at *2. The question, however, is not whether the founts of original jurisdiction are the same but whether the removal vehicle is the same. As noted above, Reed's analysis is grounded in the removal vehicle of Section 1441(a), not in the jurisdictional fount of Section 1331. Because Section 1441(a) applies to removals based on Section 1332 just as surely as it applies to removals based on Section 1331, Reed applies equally in the diversity context.

The Bryant Court next noted that, while Section 1441(c) as it then existed...