Saenz v. Austin Roofer's Supply, LLC, EP-09-CV-132-PRM.

• Decision Date: 06 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. EP-09-CV-132-PRM.,EP-09-CV-132-PRM.
• Citation: 664 F.Supp.2d 704
• Parties: Javier SAENZ, Jorge Juarez and Rebecca Arredondo, Plaintiffs, v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC, d/b/a RSGRP Austin, Ltd. and d/b/a Roofing Supply Group and Arturo Portillo, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

Page 704

664 F.Supp.2d 704

Javier SAENZ, Jorge Juarez and Rebecca Arredondo, Plaintiffs, v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC, d/b/a RSGRP Austin, Ltd. and d/b/a Roofing Supply Group and Arturo Portillo, Defendants.

No. EP-09-CV-132-PRM.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

October 6, 2009.

Raymond D. Martinez, Scherr & Legate, PLLC, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Arthur V. Lambert, Kane Russell Coleman & Logan, PC, Dallas, TX, Henry J. Paoli, Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger, Thurmond, Alejandro Acosta, Ricardo Ortiz, Jr., Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado, Acosta, LLP, El Paso, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

PHILIP R. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

On this day, the Court considered Plaintiffs Javier Saenz, Jorge Juarez, and Rebecca Arredondo's (Plaintiffs) "Motion for Partial Remand and Brief in Support," filed on May 7, 2009; Defendant Austin Roofer's Supply, LLC's (Austin Roofer's Supply) "Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Remand and Brief in Support," filed on May 15, 2009; and Defendant Arturo Portillo's (Portillo) "Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Remand and Brief in Support," filed on May 15, 2009,¹ and Plaintiffs' "Reply in Support of Their Motion for Partial Remand," filed on May 26, 2009, in the above-captioned cause. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs' Motion should be granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Austin Roofer's Supply is a Texas corporation that sells roofing supplies in the state of Texas. Plaintiffs Javier Saenz and Jorge Juarez were formerly sales representatives employed by Austin Roofer's Supply, while Plaintiff Rebecca Arredondo is currently employed as a sales representative at Austin Roofer's Supply. Defendant Portillo holds the position of manager at Austin Roofer's Supply.

On February 19, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated this action in County Court at Law Number Six in El Paso County, Texas. Pls.' Orig. Pet. 1; Def.'s Notice of Removal 1. Plaintiffs allege in their Original Petition that Austin Roofer's Supply and Portillo failed to pay them overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Pls.' Orig. Pet. ¶ ¶ 9-11, 19-20. Plaintiffs further allege that Austin Roofer's Supply breached a contract with Plaintiffs under state common law by failing to pay them commissions for sales of roofing supplies. Id. ¶ ¶ 8, 27. Finally, Plaintiff Arredondo alleges that Portillo committed common law assault and battery against her in the workplace, and that Austin Roofer's Supply acted negligently in its training, retention, and supervision of its employee Portillo.² Id. ¶ ¶ 12, 28-29.

On April 7, 2009, Defendant Portillo filed a timely Notice of Removal, indicating that Defendant Austin Roofer's Supply consented to and joined in the removal of the action. Def.'s Notice of Removal 118. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal of the FLSA claim, and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2006) as the basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Id. ¶ 8.

On May 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Partial Remand and Brief in Support. Pls.' Mot. for Partial Remand 1. Therein, Plaintiffs argue that their claims for breach of contract and Arredondo's claims for assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision "alleged separate and independent state law claims" and therefore should be remanded in the Court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2006). Id. 4. Austin Roofer's Supply and Portillo respond that Plaintiffs' state law claims are not "separate and independent," but rather the state and federal claims "arise out [of] a single series of interlocking or intertwined transactions." Def.'s Resp. in Opp'n 1. Defendants further assert that judicial economy would be served by deciding all of the claims in one proceeding. Id. 1-2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Removal

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction." Peoples Nat'l Bank v. Office of Comptroller of the Currency of U.S., 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir.2004); accord Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 993, 122 S.Ct. 459, 151 L.Ed.2d 377 (2001). As such, federal courts must "presume[ ] that a [suit] lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). In a removal action, it is the removing party that "bear[s] the burden of establishing jurisdiction." Boone v. Citigroup, Inc., 416 F.3d 382, 388 (5th Cir.2005). Because removal raises significant federalism concerns, courts must strictly and narrowly interpret the removal statutes, with any doubt construed against removal and in favor of remand. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.2002).

When a plaintiff chooses to file suit in state court, the defendant may remove the case to federal court if "the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treatises or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Typically, courts determine whether a claim arises under federal law by resorting to the wellpleaded complaint rule, wherein "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of [the] plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint." PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 543 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). "In an action that has been removed to federal court, a district court is required to remand the case to state court if, at any time before final judgment; it determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Blanchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Tex., LP, 368 F.Supp.2d 621, 623 (E.D.Tex.2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(2006)).

B. Supplemental Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)

Federal courts must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy," except under certain limited circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Most courts agree that § 1367 codified the standard for supplemental jurisdiction announced in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). 13D CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, EDWARD H. COOPER & RICHARD D. FREER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3567.1 at 337 (3d ed. 2008). In order to decide state claims that lack an independent basis of jurisdiction, a federal court must find that the state and federal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative facts" and are such that the plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding."³ Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130. By contrast, where the state and federal claims do not share a common nucleus of operative facts, the state law claims must be dismissed or remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

C. Removal and Remand Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)

Section 1441(c) of Title 28 provides a statutory basis for removal to federal court and for discretionary remand to state court of certain claims:

Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by section 1331 of [Title 28] is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).

The leading case interpreting this section, though it addressed a prior version of the statute in the context of a diversity case, is American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951). In Finn, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the meaning of the phrase "separate and independent," noting that "where there is a single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action." Finn, 341 U.S. at 14, 71 S.Ct. 534. In order to remand a claim under § 1441(c), it must be "(1) a separate and independent claim or cause of action; (2) joined with a federal question; (3) otherwise non-removable; and (4) a matter in which state law predominates." Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 F.3d 100, 104 (5th Cir.1996).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Claim

As an initial matter, the Court acknowledges that it has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act claim. A claim under the FLSA arises under federal law. Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 694, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 155 L.Ed.2d 923 (2003). Therefore, a defendant in a civil action may properly remove a FLSA claim to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not dispute that their FLSA claim should remain in federal court. Pls.' Mot. for Partial Remand 2. Plaintiffs' motion instead requests that the Court remand only its state law claims for assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision (hereinafter tort claims), and breach of contract (hereinafter contract claim).⁴ Id. at 8. The Plaintiffs' tort claims and contract claim will be taken up in turn.

B. Tort Claims

Plaintiffs urge the Court to remand the state law tort claims (assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision) in its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Plaintiffs argue that Arredondo's state law claims are "separate and independent" from the FLSA claim under § 1441(c), even though Defendants removed on the basis of § 1441(b) and § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction.⁵ However, Plaintiffs' argument that its tort claims are "separate and independent" from its FLSA...