Arsenal Minerals and Royalty et al v. The City of Denton, TX

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION - DENYING 9 First MOTION to Remand to State Court (Corrected) filed by Arsenal Minerals and Royalty. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/27/2015. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

In Re ARSENAL MINERALS AND
ROYALTY; THE CHANDLER DAVIS
TRUST, LESLEE ANN GASSAWAY
DAVIS, TRUSTEE, JOINED HEREIN
BY NASA ENERGY CORP.
v.
THE CITY OF DENTON

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:14-CV-639
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. #9). Having considered the
relevant pleadings, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.
Plaintiffs filed suit in the 431st Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas, in Cause
No. 14-07262-431 on September 12, 2014. On October 3, 2014, Defendant filed a Notice of
Removal on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction. On October 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand, arguing that there is no federal claim because the Court lacks jurisdiction over
the federal takings claim (Dkt. #9). November 12, 2014, Defendant filed a response (Dkt. #11) and
Defendant’s Supplemental Notice Clarifying Grounds for Removal Jurisdiction (Dkt. #12). No reply
was filed by Plaintiffs.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits removal of “any civil action brought in a State Court of
which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” Under this statute, “[a]
defendant may remove a state court action to federal court only if the action could have originally
been filed in the federal court.” Aaron v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 876
F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.1989). Removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed, however, because
it “implicates important federalism concerns.” Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919, 922 (5th

Cir.1997). Furthermore, “any doubts concerning removal must be resolved against removal and in
favor of remanding the case back to state court.” Cross v. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co., 810 F.
Supp. 748, 750 (N.D. Tex. 1992). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal. Frank, 128 F.3d at 921-22.
A state court lawsuit is removable to federal court if it includes a claim arising under federal
law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331. Whether federal question jurisdiction exists in a removal action
is based on the allegations in a plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under the well pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction
depends on whether “there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question
of federal law.” Baron v. Strassner, 7 F. Supp. 2d 871, 873 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (citation omitted). “It
is well settled that the party who brings the suit is the master of what law he will rely upon.” Id.
Where potential remedies exist under both state and federal law, a plaintiff may choose to
proceed only under state law and avoid federal court jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392;
Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. School Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995). “Where, however,
the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint establishes that federal law creates the cause of action, the case
arises under federal law, conferring jurisdiction on the federal courts.” Payton v. GC Services Ltd.
Partnership, Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1967-G, 2009 WL 235196, at *2-3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2009).
Once the Court “has proper removal jurisdiction over a federal claim, it may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims, ... even if it dismisses or otherwise disposes of the federal claim
or claims.” Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367).
Even though a federal claim is available to a plaintiff, if that plaintiff chooses not to assert
2

that federal claim, then the defendant generally cannot remove the claim to federal court on the basis
of a possible asserted claim or a possible federal defense. Carpenter, 44 F.3d at 366. Two limited
exceptions to this rule exist. One involves the total preemption of state law by federal law and the
second involves a situation where a plaintiff does not have a legitimate state law claim, but only a
viable federal law claim. Baron, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 873.

.

In this case, Plaintiffs chose to include a federal claim for substantive due process. Plaintiffs
could have omitted any reference to such a claim. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have asserted
a claim under federal law which permits removal.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. #9) is hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 27th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3