Mays v. Labor Finders et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM RULING severing and remanding plaintiff's claims against the Louisiana Work Force Commission / State of Louisiana to the 1st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 3/21/13. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
JOHN L. MAYS, JR.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3127

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ELIZABETH E. FOOTE

LABOR FINDERS, ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM RULING
On, or about October 31, 2012, plaintiff John L. Mays filed the instant pro se petition
against defendants, LFI Fort Pierce d/b/a Labor Finders (incorrectly named in the petition as
“Labor Finders”) (hereinafter, “LFI”) and the Louisiana Workforce Commission (incorrectly
named in the petition as the State of Louisiana, the unemployment office, “Tribunal Appeal Unit
Court,” and/or the State of Louisiana Board of Regents) (hereinafter, “LWC”) in the 1st Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana. Plaintiff contends that defendants
violated his numerous civil and labor rights, plus unspecified state and federal laws enjoyed by
citizens such as himself. (“Petition For Review My Appeal”). Apparently, Mays is seeking to
appeal an unfavorable decision issued by a state appeals tribunal. He seeks damages in the
amount of $33 million.
In addition to the foregoing, Mays attached to his petition an unsigned Charge of
Discrimination that he ostensibly presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). (Petition, Exh.). He alleges in the charge that his former employer, LFI,
discriminated against him on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and age. He further
alleges that LFI retaliated against him in violation of Title VII.
In conjunction with his state court petition, Mays also filed a “Petition for Change from

State Court to Federal Court.” (Petition, Exh.). He alleged in this submission that he thought his
case constituted a federal matter because the State of Louisiana is part of the problem. Id. He
further represented that he had filed charges with the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights
Division, the EEOC, and the U.S. Inspector General. Id.
On December 19, 2012, defendant LFI exercised its right to remove the case to federal
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, on the sole basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1331. (Notice of Removal).1 However, the notice of removal conspicuously failed to address
whether co-defendant, the LWC, joined in, or otherwise consented to removal. Id.
On March 6, 2013, counsel for LFI wrote a letter to the court wherein she advised that
counsel for the LWC had contacted her and explained that the proper state entity defendant was,
in fact, the LWC. (March 6, 2013, Letter from Catherine Giering [doc. # 17]). Furthermore,
counsel for the LWC raised an issue with regard to the receipt (or lack thereof) of the removal
proceedings and service of same. Id. The court construed LFI’s letter as a request for a status
conference, which the court duly set for March 21, 2013. (March 7, 2013, E-Order [doc. # 18]).
On March 21, 2013, the court held a telephone status conference that included counsel for
LFI and the LWC. See Minutes of Proceedings [doc. # 19].2 During the conference, counsel for
defendants agreed that there were no federal claims against the state entity(ies). Id. Furthermore,
the presence of the state entity(ies) raised an 11th Amendment immunity issue that compelled the
court to sever and remand to state court plaintiff’s claims against the state entity(ies). Id. The
court, as detailed below, agrees.

1

Incorrectly denominated as a “Petition for Removal.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

2

Despite notice, plaintiff did not participate in the conference call. Counsel for LFI
repeatedly endeavored, without success, to reach plaintiff at his contact number of record.
2

Law and Analysis
A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court, provided the action is
one in which the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction. Manguno v. Prudential
Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). The
removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction and
ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of removal. Id. The removal statutes are
strictly construed in favor of remand. Id.
The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 (the “JVCA”)
amended the removal statutes to provide that upon removal of a civil action that includes “a
claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of
[28 U.S.C. § 1331]), . . .” the “district court shall sever from the action all claims [not within the
original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or a claim that has been made
nonremovable by statute] and shall remand the severed claims to the State court from which the
action was removed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1)-(2) (emphasis added).
In this case, it is manifest that plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims against LFI
arise under federal law. Consequently, the court enjoys subject matter and removal jurisdiction
to entertain plaintiff’s claims against LFI. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1441(c)(1)(A). However,
with regard to plaintiff’s claims against the LWC, the court observes that
[t]he Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits in federal
court by citizens of a state against their own state or a state agency or department.
Claims under federal statutes do not override the Eleventh Amendment bar unless
there is a clear showing of congressional intent to abrogate the bar. Section 1983
does not override the Eleventh Amendment bar.
Darlak v. Bobear, 814 F.2d 1055, 1059 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for both money damages and injunctive relief against a state

3

entity. Id. It also precludes state law claims brought against the State and its departments (in
federal court). Richardson v. Southern University, 118 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 1997).
The LWC is a state agency that is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in
federal court. Sandres v. Louisiana Workforce Comm'n, C. A. No. 09-652-C, 2010 WL 565378
(M.D. La. Feb. 17, 2010). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s action
against said defendant. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)). As plaintiff’s claims against the LWC do not lie within this court’s
original or supplemental jurisdiction, the court is required to sever and remand them to state
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 (authorizing the court to add or drop a
party on its own, at any time).
Conclusion
For the above-assigned reasons, the court, via separate judgment, will sever and remand
plaintiff’s claims against the Louisiana Work Force Commission/State of Louisiana to the 1st
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, State of Louisiana.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 21st day of March
2013.

4