Rodriguez v. CVS Pharm.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:23-cv-006 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2023 |
| Parties | SAN JUANA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff San Juana Rodriguez's Motion to Remand, Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.'s (hereinafter, “Defendant” or “CVS”) Response, and Plaintiff's Supplement and Reply. Dkt. Nos 8, 11-13. The Court is also in receipt of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Response. Dkt. Nos. 9 14. For the reasons provided below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; (2) GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; (3) DISMISS all of Plaintiff's claims; and (4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
This Court has federal diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
On November 10, 2022, Rodriguez filed suit in the 444th Judicial District Court for Cameron County, Texas (Cause No. 2022-DCL-05405/70077265), alleging unlawful employment discrimination against CVS (hereinafter, the “Original Petition”). See Dkt. No. 1-2. On January 11, 2023, CVS removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Dkt. No. 1. On January 18, 2023, CVS filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Rodriguez's alleged failure to arbitrate claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Dkt. No. 3. On February 1, 2023, in lieu of responding to CVS's Motion to Dismiss, Rodriguez filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 6. Thereafter, on February 7, 2023, the Court entered an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss as moot. Dkt. No. 7.
On February 13, 2023, Rodriguez filed the instant Motion to Remand. Dkt. No. 8. She argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 threshold to establish diversity jurisdiction. Id. Further, she contends that CVS's notice of removal is procedurally defective, warranting a remand to state court. Id. On March 3, 2023, CVS responded that the notice of removal establishes that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Dkt. No 11. CVS stated that Rodriguez's post-removal attempt to reduce the amount in controversy by way of stipulation is futile. Id. In addition, CVS asserted that Rodriguez's contentions as to procedural defects are untimely and insufficient. Id. On March 7, 2023, Rodriguez supplemented her Motion to Remand, attaching and incorporating an affidavit and stipulation regarding damages. Dkt. No. 12.[1] Rodriguez also filed a reply in support of her motion. Dkt. No. 13.
On February 14, 2023, CVS filed its Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 9. CVS reiterated its argument that Rodriguez's claims must be dismissed or, in the alternative, stayed pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. Id. CVS attached as an exhibit the arbitration agreement, which states:
Under this Agreement, [Rodriguez] and CVS agree that any dispute between [Rodriguez] and CVS that is covered by this Agreement (“Covered Claims”) will be decided by a single arbitrator through final and binding arbitration only and will not be decided by a court or jury or any other forum, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement . . . Except as otherwise stated in this Agreement, Covered Claims are any and all claims, disputes or controversies that CVS may have, now or in the future, against [Rodriguez] or that [Rodriguez] may have, now or in the future, against CVS or one of its employees or agents, arising out of or related to [Rodriguez's] employment with CVS or the termination of [Rodriguez's] employment. Covered Claims include but are not limited to disputes regarding wages and other forms of compensation, hours of work, meal and rest break periods, seating, expense reimbursement, leaves of absence, harassment, discrimination, retaliation and termination arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, and other federal, state and local statutes, regulations and other legal authorities relating to employment. Covered Claims also include disputes arising out of or relating to the validity, enforceability or breach of this Agreement.
Dkt. No. 9-1 at 8. On March 7, 2023, Rodriguez responded that the motion must be denied and the case should be remanded to state court. Dkt. No. 14.
The party removing an action bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction is present. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). All doubts concerning whether removal jurisdiction is proper must be resolved in favor of remand. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a federal court will not have subject matter jurisdiction unless: (1) “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and (2) complete diversity of citizenship is present between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
With respect to the amount-in-controversy requirement, the sum demanded by the plaintiff in her original petition generally controls if made in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). Notwithstanding, the amount-in-controversy “should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). If the defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation is contested or questioned, the defendant “can meet its burden of demonstrating the amount in controversy by showing that the amount is ‘facially apparent' from the plaintiffs' pleadings alone, or by submitting summary-judgment-type evidence.” Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). If state law does not permit the plaintiff to demand a specific sum,[2]the defendant must establish that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000, by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
In evaluating the amount in controversy, the court may only consider damages claimed at the time of removal, which “cannot be based simply on conclusory allegations.” Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995). The fact that “the removing party bears the burden of proving the amount in controversy does not mean that the removing party cannot ask the court to make common-sense inferences about the amount put at stake by the injuries the plaintiffs claim.” Robertson, 814 F.3d at 240 (internal citation omitted).
“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “[A]ll removal defects are waivable except for lack of original subject matter jurisdiction.” In re Digicon Marine, Inc., 966 F.2d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 1992). “[A] plaintiff waives his right to remand on the basis of procedural defects-like untimely removal-if he fails to file a motion to remand on that basis within thirty (30) days after notice of removal is given.” Tommaso v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 15274, 2016 WL 6883042, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2016).
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted). The party asserting jurisdiction “constantly bears the burden of proof” to show that jurisdiction exists. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). The Court will generally accept as true all “well-pleaded allegations set forth in the complaint and construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Kumar v. Frisco Indep. Sch. Dist., 443 F.Supp.3d 771, 777-78 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (internal citation omitted).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), a party may move for dismissal based on improper venue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). Similarly, “on a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and resolve all conflicts in favor of the plaintiff.” Braspetro Oil Servs. Co. v. Modec (USA), Inc., 240 Fed.Appx. 612, 615 (5th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff maintains the burden of demonstrating that venue is proper. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Rasche, 273 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D. Tex. 2011).
Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. (“FAA”), “[a] written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “In adjudicating a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts generally conduct a two-step inquiry.” Webb v. Investacorp. Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 258 (5th Cir. 1996). Courts must evaluate: (1) “whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question,” and (2) “whether legal constraints external to the parties' agreement foreclosed the arbitration of those claims.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
To determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute courts consider: “(1) whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of that arbitration agreement.” ...
To continue reading
Request your trial