South Technical Diesel Inc v. Volvo Group North Am. LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5-10-129

CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
Writing for the CourtMicaela Alvarez
PartiesSOUTH TECHNICAL DIESEL, INC., Plaintiff, v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, cil, Defendants.
Decision Date03 March 2011
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 5-10-129

SOUTH TECHNICAL DIESEL, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, cil, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5-10-129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION

Dated: March 3, 2011


OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. [Dkt. No. 5].1 After considering the filings of both parties as well as the governing law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS

On November 3, 2010, South Technical Diesel ("Plaintiff") filed a petition against Volvo Group North America, L.L.C., Valley Truck Centers, Inc., and Valley Truck Center of Laredo, L.L.C. (collectively "Defendants") in the 341st District Court of Webb County, Texas. [Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1-14]. Plaintiff's original petition accuses the Defendants of fraud, negligent misrepresentations, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, deceptive trade practices, a violation of the Theft Liability Act, a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Malice, and Conspiracy. [Id.]. Defendants timely removed the case to this Court based on the fact that Plaintiff's original petition pleads a cause of action that arises under federal law; namely, the RICO claim. [Dkt. No. 1 at 2]; 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Page 2

Defendants also assert that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. [Dkt. No. 1 at 2].

On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand reasoning that the "Court should remand this Case back to state court because state law predominates." [Dkt. No. 5 at 2]. Alternatively, should the Court be unmoved by the "predominance of state law" argument, Plaintiff requests the Court's leave to dismiss the RICO claim by amending its pleading or filing a motion to dismiss. [Dkt. No. 5 at 3]. On January 19, 2011, Defendants filed Volvo Group North America, L.L.C.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. [Dkt. No. 9]. In its response, Defendants conclude that this Court cannot remand the RICO claim because it was properly removed and is a federal claim which confers removal jurisdiction. Further, Defendants conclude that Plaintiff's state law claims should not be remanded because they are not sufficiently independent from Plaintiff's RICO claim, and because Plaintiff has not properly dismissed its RICO claim. [Id. at 3-7].

II. DISCUSSION

It is axiomatic that the courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT