Mott v. Thermavant Technologies, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER granting #6 motion in part. The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at his last known address. Signed on 02/16/2021 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Maerz, Mary) Modified on 2/17/2021 to reflect copy mailed to Jonathan Mott at 1420 Gypsy Moth Dr., Columbia, MO 65202 (Berner, Crystal).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

JONATHAN MOTT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THERMAVANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 2:20-CV-04253-MDH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6). For the reasons discussed
below, the Motion is GRANTED as to any of Plaintiff’s federal claims only, and the Court
declines to rule on the state law claims. Any federal claims by Plaintiff are dismissed with
prejudice, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Boone County, Missouri, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the termination of Plaintiff by employer Defendant. Plaintiff’s
employment was stated to be terminated because of “non-compliance with City of Columbia’s
Ordinance 02484 and [Defendant’s] policy requiring proper face covering.” (Compl. Ex. A.).
Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, lost wages, breach of contract, and breach of implied
contract. (Compl. generally).
The case was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri
because “Plaintiff alleges in his Petition that [Defendant] terminated his employment in violation
of federal law,” and “refers to rights, standards, and regulations promulgated under the

1

Case 2:20-cv-04253-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3

Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA].” (Doc. 1, 2) Plaintiff argues this case was
improperly removed because his Complaint “fails to identify any federal question.” Indeed,
Plaintiff argues that Defendant committed a crime against him by requiring him to wear a mask
because it is “a crime in the State of Missouri to engage in the administration or application of a
medical device without a physician’s supervision…” (Doc. 7, 2).
STANDARD
Defendants may remove to federal court “any civil action brought in a State court of which
the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A plaintiff
may challenge removal by filing a motion to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The party seeking
removal bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. In re Bus. Men’s Assurance
Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 1993). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), “district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different states[.]”
“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt
by the defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). “[A] district court is required to resolve all doubts about
federal jurisdiction in favor of remand.” Transit Cas. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of
London, 119 F.3d 619, 625 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). This Court must resolve
jurisdictional issues prior to resolving any other pending motions. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for
Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998) (noting “the requirement that jurisdiction be established
as a threshold matter”). Thus, Allied World’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is secondary to the
initial determination of jurisdiction.

2

Case 2:20-cv-04253-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asserts he has no federal claims. (Doc. 7, 1). This Court agrees. While Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges that Defendant violated federal law and OSHA policies, none of Plaintiff’s
claims concern federal law and rely exclusively on Missouri state law. Plaintiff does not allege
that Defendant violated any federal law in connection with his state claims of wrongful
termination, lost wages, and breach of contract. Plaintiff’s Suggestions in Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss makes clear that Plaintiff brings claims based on Missouri laws concerning medical
intervention, treatment, medical examination, informed consent, and duty of care. (Doc. 7,
generally).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to
only any of Plaintiff’s federal claims based on Plaintiff’s assertion that he presents no federal
claims and this Court’s agreement. The Court declines to rule on the state law claims, and the
remainder of the action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Boone County, Missouri, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2021

/s/ Douglas Harpool______
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
United States District Judge

3

Case 2:20-cv-04253-MDH Document 12 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3