FOSTER v. W-TRANSFER, INC. et al

Filing 17

ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND - 10 Motion to Remand is DENIED. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/7/2011. (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION

BRIAN FOSTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
W-TRANSFER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11-cv-118- SEB-WGH

ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
(Docket No. 10)
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Defendants’ response brief, and
Plaintiff’s reply. Having done so, and being duly advised in the premises, we find that Plaintiff’s
motion lacks merit and must be denied.
Defendants’ removal of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 was
proper because Plaintiff’s Complaint, on its face, establishes that Plaintiff’s right to relief turns on
questions of federal law. Indeed, Plaintiff’s claim of entitlement to wages and benefits prescribed
by the Davis-Bacon Act necessarily raises the question: “Did Plaintiff perform work covered by the
Davis-Bacon Act?” That question can be answered only by interpreting the Davis-Bacon Act, which
is a federal law. 40 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. It is this federal question, not some anticipated federal
law defense, that gave Defendants the right to remove this action.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is accordingly DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/07/2011
Date: _________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
George D. Adams
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
[e-mail]
Elijah D. Baccus
ALLOTTA FARLEY WICHMAN CO. LPA
[e-mail]
Marilyn Lee Widman
ALLOTTA FARLEY & WIDMAN
[e-mail]