Mercado v. Pyramid Consulting Inc et al

Filing 20

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 4 Motion to Remand Case to State Court. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/30/2013) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
HEATHER MERCADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PYRAMID CONSULTING, INC., and
TIM HOLT,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-608-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case to State Court, filed March 7,
2013. After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, record, telephonic conference
held today, and applicable law, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Case to State
Court.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Heather Mercado (“Plaintiff” of “Mercado”) originally filed this action against Pyramid

Consulting, Inc. (“Pyramid”) on December 21, 2012, in County Court at Law Number 4, Dallas
County, Texas. She sued for unlawful sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and sexual discrimination and
retaliation pursuant to the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”).
On February 6, 2013, Pyramid removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a), contending that the court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity jurisdiction).
Plaintiff amended her pleadings on April 3, 2013, and added Tim Holt (“Holt”) as a defendant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

During the telephonic conference held on May 30, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Richard J.
Deaguero, informed the court that his client was still asserting claims under Title VII and that
they remained part of the lawsuit. In addition to the Title VII claims, Plaintiff asserts claims for
sexual harassment and retaliation under TCHRA against both Defendants, and common law
claims of assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Holt. Plaintiff seeks a
remand, contending that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts with respect
to Title VII claims and that Pyramid failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. As the court determines that this motion can be decided
on the basis that a federal question exists, it declines to address Plaintiff’s argument that the
amount-in-controversy requirement has not been met.
II.

Discussion
Unless Congress expressly provides otherwise, a defendant may remove a state court

civil action to federal district court if the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. A
federal district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the United States
Constitution, a treaty, or a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Title VII is a federal statute, and
this court therefore has original jurisdiction to hear the action. Moreover, Title VII provides that
“[e]ach United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Accordingly, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this action
cannot be seriously questioned.
Mercado’s argument regarding concurrent jurisdiction is without merit. Her reliance on
Yellow Freight System, Incorporated v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (1990), is misplaced. Donnelly
simply held that “Congress did not divest state courts of their concurrent authority to adjudicate
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

federal claims.” Id. at 823. That concurrent jurisdiction exists between federal and state courts
to hear Title VII claims in no way precludes a defendant from removing such an action from
state court to federal court. As Congress has not prohibited such removals, a defendant has the
right to remove Title VII claims, notwithstanding the existence of concurrent jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that Holt’s presence in this lawsuit, a nondiverse defendant,
destroys diversity jurisdiction is also without merit.

The court has determined that it has

jurisdiction because of a claim asserted by Plaintiff under federal law, and the presence of an instate defendant regarding diversity of citizenship is quite beside the point in deciding whether a
district court has federal question jurisdiction.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons herein stated and those stated on the record in open court on May 30,

2013, this court has original jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s Title VII claims, and Pyramid was
authorized by statute to remove this action. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand Case to State Court.
It is so ordered this 30th day of May, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3