Tidwell v. IMPAQ International LLC

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 12/29/2016. (c/m 12/29/16 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*

MIGUEL D. TIDWELL,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.
IMPAQ INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant.
*

*

*

Civil Action No. RDB-16-421

*
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Miguel D. Tidwell filed this action against defendant IMPAQ
International, LLC (“Impaq”) alleging unlawful discrimination based on plaintiff’s physical
and mental impairments. (ECF No. 2.) Tidwell originally filed his Complaint in the Circuit
Court for Howard County, Maryland, and Impaq removed the case to this Court on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting that Tidwell’s claims arise
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”).
Currently pending is plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No.
12). 1 The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 12) is
DENIED.

Also pending are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) These motions will
be addressed separately in due course.

1

1

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Miguel D. Tidwell worked for defendant from May 2006 until October 31,
2014. (ECF No. 2 at 1, 3.) Plaintiff alleges that in late 2013, he notified Impaq’s Human
Resources department of his mental disability 2 and glaucoma. (Id. at 2.)

Subsquently,

plaintiff alleges, another employee of defendant, Stephanie Naber, discriminated against him
on account of his disabilities. (Id. at 1.) Specifically, plaintiff alleges that by designating an
ergonomic chair in the office for Mr. Tidwell’s exclusive use, Ms. Naber expressly labelled
Mr. Tidwell as “disabled” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff resigned from his position on October 31, 2014, and subsequently filed a
Complaint against Impaq with the Office of Human Rights in Columbia, Maryland. (ECF
No. 2 at 3.) The Complaint was cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”), which ultimately issued plaintiff a Right-to-Sue letter. (Id.) Plaintiff
subsequently filed suit in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, and defendant
removed the case to this Court.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A defendant in a state civil action may remove the case to federal court only if the
federal court can exercise original jurisdiction over at least one of the asserted claims. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a)-(c). Once an action is removed to federal court, the plaintiff may file a
motion to remand the case to state court if there is a contention that jurisdiction is defective.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking removal, and not the party seeking remand, bears the
burden of establishing jurisdiction in the federal court. Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chemicals
2

Plaintiff does not specifically identify his mental disability.
2

Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92
(1921)).

Federal courts are obliged to carefully scrutinize challenges to jurisdictional

authority, and must “do more than simply point jurisdictional traffic in the direction of state
courts.” 17th Street Associates, LLP v. Markel Int’l Ins. Co. Ltd., 373 F. Supp. 2d 584, 592 (E.D.
Va. 2005). On a motion to remand, this Court must “strictly construe the removal statute
and resolve all doubts in favor of remanding the case to state court.” Richardson v. Phillip
Morris, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 700, 701-02 (D. Md. 1997) (citation omitted).

“If federal

jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary.” Mulcahy, 29 F.3d at 151; see also Dixon v.
Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 815-16 (4th Cir. 2004).
ANALYSIS
Impaq argues that this Court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this
case because Tidwell’s claims arise under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Accordingly,
defendant asserts, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 was proper and this Court exercises
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 24 at 1-2.) In its Supplemental Notice of
Removal, Impaq further asserts that plaintiff’s deposition transcript constitutes an “other
paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) which provides additional support for the “facts
supporting federal jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 31 at 2-3.)
In his original Motion and in a belatedly filed Reply memorandum to defendant’s
opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, plaintiff expresses a preference for the Howard County
forum and asserts that defendant’s removal was intended to allow defendant to “run and
hide out in Baltimore for litigation.” (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff raises no legal or factual
argument in support of his position.
3

It is evident from the face of the Complaint and from plaintiff’s own subsequent
filings that plaintiff’s claims are brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal
statute over which this Court properly exercises original jurisdiction. Indeed, plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment asserts that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages based on
defendants’ “violating the ADA Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) of 2008.” (ECF No. 33 at 3.) In addition, there is no
indication—or even allegation—that the timing or content of defendant’s notice of removal
was improper.
In sum, this Court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
claims; defendant’s removal was proper; and Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 12) must be
DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
The pending Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 33, 34) will be addressed in
due course.
Dated: December 29, 2016

/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

4