Baxley v. Oklahoma City City of

Filing 12

ORDER granting 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; copy mailed to Okla. Co. Court. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 4/20/15. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WESLEY BAXLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, a
Political subdivision of the STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-169-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 14, 2014, Oklahoma City police officers forced Plaintiff, a disabled
veteran, and his service dog to leave a McDonald’s restaurant. Based on this incident,
Plaintiff filed suit in the Oklahoma State District Court of Oklahoma County, asserting two
claims of negligence against Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that he had a legal right to be in the
McDonald’s with a service dog and cites the federal Americans with Disability Act of 1990
(“ADA”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant negligently trained, supervised, and retained the police
officers who “ordered Plaintiff to leave the restaurant or be arrested.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 10,
Ex. 1, at 3.) Plaintiff also alleges Defendant negligently “breached its duty of care to know
and follow the law set out in the [ADA] and to apply it in a manner that did not discriminate
against Plaintiff.” (Id. at 4.) On February 17, 2015, Defendant removed the case to federal
court, asserting that this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 10). Defendant filed a
Response (Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiff did not reply. The Motion is at issue.

Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case arises under
federal law if its ‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause
of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.” Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir.
1994) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28
(1983)). In the instant case, federal jurisdiction must arise out of the latter because federal
law did not create Plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff does not assert a claim under the
ADA’s remedial provisions. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117, 12132 & 12188. Rather, Plaintiff
asserts state tort claims of negligence. “[J]urisdiction ‘must be determined from what
necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim.’” Gilmore v. Weatherford,
694 F.3d 1160, 1173 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76
(1914)).

Federal courts will have jurisdiction over state-law claims that “implicate

significant federal issues.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545
U.S. 308, 312 (2005). The state law claims must “necessarily raise a stated federal issue,
actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Id. at 314.
This “‘substantial question’ branch of federal question jurisdiction is exceedingly narrow—a
‘special and small category’ of cases.” Gilmore, 694 F.3d at 1171 (quoting Empire
Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). This is because such
determinations “‘require sensitive judgments about congressional intent, judicial power, and
2

the federal system’” and, consequently, require federal courts to “exercise ‘prudence and
restraint.’” Morris, 39 F.3d at 1111 (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478
U.S. 804, 810, 813 (1986)). Defendant, as the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction,
bears the burden of establishing that the instant case properly falls under the Court’s
jurisdiction. Ernzen v. Ernzen, No. 95-3145, 1997 WL 7276, at *1 (10th Cir. Jan. 9, 1997)
(citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law because the claims
involve Plaintiff’s rights and the police officers’ duties under the ADA. However, “the mere
presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federalquestion jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 478 U.S. at 813 (1986). The federal issue
must be “substantial,” i.e., “one that ‘indicat[es] a serious federal interest in claiming the
advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum.’” Gilmore , 694 F.3d at 1174 (quoting
Grable, 545 U.S. at 313). Plaintiff’s complaint does not indicate such serious federal
interests. Plaintiff asserts state-law claims of negligence against a political subdivision of
the state of Oklahoma. The United States Supreme Court has held that “the violation of the
federal standard as an element of state tort recovery [does] not fundamentally change the
state tort nature of the action.” Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 478 U.S. at 814 n.12 (citing Moore
v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934)). Although Plaintiff’s claims may turn
on some construction of federal law, “[s]tate courts routinely interpret and apply federal
law.” Ernzen, No. 95-3145, 1997 WL 7276, at *3. Based on this reasoning, and bearing in
mind the Court’s duty to exercise “prudence and restraint,” the Court finds the nature of the
3

federal interest at issue does not warrant the exercise of federal subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED. The Court
Clerk shall take the necessary steps to remand this matter to the District Court of Oklahoma
County.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2015.

4