Clewis v. Medco Health Solutions Inc

Filing 21

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 6 Motion to Remand. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/1/2013) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROSE MARY CLEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-5208-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, filed January 2, 2013. After careful
consideration of the motion, response brief, reply brief, record, and applicable authority, the
court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
I.

Background
Rose Mary Clewis (“Plaintiff” or “Clewis”) initially filed this action against Medco

Health Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Medco”), on October 22, 2012, in the 116th Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas. She asserted claims against Medco under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”).
Pl.’s Orig. Pet. 1, ¶ 1; 2, ¶ 8; 3-5, ¶¶ 17-19.
Medco removed the state case to federal court on December 20, 2012, contending that
this court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiff’s federal
claims and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s state law
claims. Plaintiff counters that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and
seeks a remand to state court.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

II.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A.

The General Standard

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or over civil cases in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction and must have statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a claim. See
Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998).
Absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, they lack the power to adjudicate
claims and must dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Id.; Stockman v.
Federal Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Veldhoen v. United States
Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994)). “[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created
by waiver or consent.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001). A federal
court has an independent duty, at any level of the proceedings, to determine whether it properly
has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583
(1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even
at the highest level.”); McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) (A
“federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”). As Medco removed on the
basis of a federal question, the court will not discuss diversity of citizenship and the amount in
controversy.
B.

Federal Question

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States, which is commonly referred to as federal question
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This provision for federal question jurisdiction is generally
invoked by a plaintiff pleading a cause of action created by federal law.
Whether an action “arises under” federal law and creates federal question jurisdiction
over a case removed from state to federal court, or one originally filed in such court, ordinarily
“must be determined by reference to the ‘well-pleaded complaint.’” Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (citation omitted). “[T]he jurisdictional facts must be
judged as of the time the complaint is filed,” St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d
1250, 1254 (5th Cir. 1998); or if the case is removed, the court must examine “jurisdictional
facts as of the time the case is removed.” Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores v. Dow Quimica,
988 F.2d 559, 565 (5th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original), abrogated on other grounds by
Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, 145 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998).
Any doubts as to the propriety of the removal should be construed strictly in favor of
remand. Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). “The
burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to
invoke it.” St. Paul Reinsurance, 134 F.3d at 1253 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, as Medco is
removed the state case to federal court, it has the burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction, which means it must show that Plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law.
III.

Discussion
Clewis contends that “Defendant has violated the American[s] [with] Disabilit[ies] Act,

(ADA), and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), by denying, and or failing
to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiff’s disability.” Pl.’s Orig. Pet. 1, ¶ 1; see also 2, ¶ 8.
There is no question that Clewis, whether intended or not, pleaded a claim under the ADA,
which is found at 42 U.S.C. § 1211 et seq. Clewis is therefore asserting a claim that is created by
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

or arises under federal law. Accordingly, a federal question is present, and the court has subject
matter jurisdiction to entertain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, as Plaintiff’s
TCHRA claim arises from the same facts as does the ADA claim, the court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the TCHRA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Medco is not asserting a federal defense, and Medco did
not remove the state action to federal court based on a federal defense. Medco removed the case
to federal court because Plaintiff pleaded for and sought relief provided pursuant to a federal
statute. If Plaintiff had not sought relief under the ADA, she would be correct in stating that no
basis exists for federal question jurisdiction; however, Plaintiff seeks federal relief pursuant to a
federal statute, and this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
That Clewis filed “Plaintiff’s Frist Amended Complaint,” which appears to delete the
ADA claim, is quite beside the point. This document was filed in the 116th Judicial District
Court, after the case has been removed to federal court, and is not the “live” or operative
pleading. To determine whether jurisdiction exists to remove a case, a court “consider[s] the
claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.” Manguno, 276 F.3d at
723 (ctitaion omitted). “Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” was filed December 28, 2012,
eight days after Defendant’s Notice of Removal.

The court therefore may not consider

“Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” in determining whether federal question jurisdiction
exists over this action. If Plaintiff wishes to omit or delete her claim under the ADA, she must
proceed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which means that she must
obtain Medco’s or the court’s consent to file an amended complaint that does not include an
ADA claim, or file an amended complaint omitting the ADA claim within 21 days after Medco
files a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b),(e), or (f).
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated, this action arises under federal law, and this court has

subject matter jurisdiction to hear it.

Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to

Remand.
It is so ordered this 1st day of March, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5