Adkins v. United Airlines Inc

Filing 22

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 11 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by Glen Adkins. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 2/28/2014) (jrr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

GLEN ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:13-cv-4255-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Remand [Docket Entry #11] filed by Plaintiff Glen
Adkins. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff was terminated from his position as a flight attendant for
Continental Airlines. Continental Airlines later merged with Defendant United Airlines, Inc.
Prior to his termination, Plaintiff had been absent from work for a number of days, allegedly due
to an ear infection. An ear infection can be a disability under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor
Code, under which Plaintiff brings this claim. Tex. Lab. Code § 21.002. Plaintiff was rehired by
Defendant on April 27, 2012.
On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in state court, alleging
disability discrimination, for which he seeks several kinds of damages. Pl.’s Pet. 8-9. On October
22, 2013, Defendant timely removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity of citizenship
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On November 21, 2013, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state
court, seeking attorneys’ fees for having to litigate the issue of removal.

Page 1 of 5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to federal court if the district
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Federal district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over civil matters with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, when the
parties are of diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The removing party bears the burden of
establishing jurisdiction. Shearer v. Sw. Serv. v. Life Ins. Co., 516 F.3d 276, 278 (5th Cir. 2008).
In considering a motion to remand, a court is to resolve issues of material fact in the plaintiff’s
favor, and any doubts must be resolved against removal. Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d
335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000).
II.
A.

ANALYSIS

Diversity Jurisdiction
The diversity required for removal is undisputed in this case. Plaintiff seeks to remand

based solely on the contention that the requisite amount in controversy is not established. A
federal court determines the amount in controversy by looking at the amount claimed in the state
court petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2); Beasley v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 2697151, at *1
(N.D. Tex. July 7, 2010) (Lynn, J.) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276
F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Petition did not state a specific amount of damages
Plaintiff is seeking. Pl.’s Pet. 8-9. When a petition does not state the specific amount of damages
sought, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253
(5th Cir. 1998).
A defendant may establish that the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional
minimum in two different ways. First, it may show that it is “facially apparent” that the amount

Page 2 of 5

in controversy exceeds $75,000, by demonstrating that the plaintiff's claims, if vindicated, would
yield damages greater than this amount. Greco v. Jones, No. 3:13-CV-1005-M, 2014 WL
177410, at *4. (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2014) (Lynn, J.). Second, if the amount in controversy is not
facially apparent, the defendant may produce summary judgment-type evidence to show that the
amount in dispute satisfies the jurisdictional minimum. Id. If a defendant is able to show by one
of these methods that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, the plaintiff is
permitted to show that, as a matter of law, it is legally certain that he will not be able to recover
the jurisdictional minimum. De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1411-12 (5th Cir. 1995)
(citing St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)).
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code provides damages for back pay, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Tex. Labor Code §§ 21.051, 21.25, 21.2585, 21.259. The
parties agree that Plaintiff’s claim for back pay from January 20, 2012, the date he was
terminated, until April 27, 2012, the date he was rehired, totals approximately $5,000. Def’s
Resp. 4; Pl.’s Reply 2. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff’s claims for
additional damages and attorneys’ fees exceed $70,000.
The Court may properly consider the fact that Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages in determining the amount in controversy. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Villegas, 242 F.3d 279,
284-85 (5th Cir. 2001). Because United Airlines has more than 500 employees, Texas law caps
the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be imposed against United Airlines
at $300,000. Tex. Lab. Code § 21.2585; Def’s Resp., App. 2. Defendant argues that the amount
of compensatory and punitive damages contemplated by this cap is alone sufficient to conclude
that Plaintiff’s claims exceed $75,000.
The mere fact that Plaintiff seeks these categories of damages is insufficient to satisfy the

Page 3 of 5

jurisdictional minimum. “The preponderance burden forces the defendant to do more than point
to a state law that might allow the plaintiff to recover more than what is pled.” It is the
Defendant’s burden to “produce evidence that establishes that the actual amount of the claim will
exceed [the jurisdictional amount].” De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412; McPhail v. Cumulus Media,
Inc., No. 3:10-CV-1109-B, 2010 WL 3239155 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2010) (Boyle, J.). Although
Defendant presented an affidavit establishing that it had more than 500 employees during the
relevant time period, that is not evidence that Plaintiff’s claim will actually reach or even
approach the cap on compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant points to no specific facts
as to a compensatory injury suffered by Plaintiff that would, in addition to Plaintiff’s $5,000
claim for back pay, exceed the $75,000 threshold.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's claim for attorneys’ fees under Texas Labor
Code § 21.259 will cause the amount in controversy to exceed the $75,000 threshold. When a
statute entitles a party to recover attorneys’ fees, courts may properly consider those fees in
determining the amount in controversy. H & D Tire & Automotive-Hardware, Inc. v. Pitney
Bowes, Inc., 227 F.3d 326, 330 (5th Cir. 2000). Defendant cites cases where courts have found
attorneys’ fees in discrimination cases under the Texas Labor Code could approach or exceed
$50,000-$75,000, contributing to satisfying the amount in controversy. See Wilson v. Hibu Inc.,
No. 3:13-CV-2012-L, 2013 WL 5803816, at *3-4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2013) (Lindsay, J.);
Mosely v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC, 2011 WL 1532386, at *3 (N.D. Tex. April 21, 2011)
(Lindsay, J.). However, these cases involved additional claims, and the plaintiffs had not been
rehired. See Wilson, 2013 WL 5803816, at *1 (plaintiff asserted claims for retaliation as well as
sex and gender discrimination); Mosley, 2011 WL 1532386, at *1-3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2011)
(plaintiff asserted claims for sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

Page 4 of 5

assault and battery, and negligent retention).
In contrast, in disability discrimination cases where plaintiffs sought similar categories of
damages as does Adkins, courts have found that the amount in controversy requirement was not
met. See, e.g., McPhail, 2010 WL 3239155, at *2 (granting a motion to remand where plaintiff
asserted a claim for disability discrimination and sought damages for back pay, past and future
mental anguish, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, although plaintiff
had sent a pre-suit demand letter seeking $120,000); Rodriguez v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No.
4:02-CV-752-A, 2002 WL 31548746, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2002) (McBryde, J.) (“The
court is not inclined to speculate or assume the amount in controversy so as to improvidently
confer diversity jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, given the small amount of back pay at issue and the
absence of evidence from Defendant as to the potential for a significant recovery by Plaintiff of
other categories of damages, the Court cannot conclude that the amount in controversy in this
case will exceed $75,000. Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore GRANTED.
B.

Plaintiff’s Claim for Attorneys’ Fees
Attorneys’ fees and costs are generally awarded upon remand “only where the removing

party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital
Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005). Although the Court has rejected Defendant’s argument, the Court
concludes Defendant’s position on removal was not unreasonable. Plaintiff’s request for
attorneys’ fees is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
February 28, 2014.

_________________________________
BARBARA M. G. LYNN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Page 5 of 5