Cruz-Cruz v. Mahamed

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 18 Motion to Remand filed by Tomas Cruz-Cruz. This case is REMANDED to the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 1/11/2017) (aaa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

TOMAS CRUZ-CRUZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
TAHLIL MAHAMED, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:16-CV-3250-G

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case to the state court
from which it was previously removed (docket entry 18). For the reasons stated
below, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a car accident involving an eighteen-wheeler that
occurred on November 30, 2015, on Interstate Highway 35 near Waco, Texas,
injuring the plaintiffs, Tomas Cruz-Cruz, Rosita Barron-Hernandez, and Cecilia
Barron. Defendants’ Notice of Removal (“Notice”) ¶ 1 (docket entry 1); Plaintiffs’
Original Petition and Request for Disclosure (“Original Petition”) at 2 (docket entry

1-2). On October 10, 2016, the plaintiffs commenced this action in the 193rd
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against the truck driver, Tahlil
Mahamed (“Mahamed”), and the trucking company, P.A.M. Transport, Inc.
(“P.A.M.”). Original Petition at 1-3.
On November 18, 2016, the defendants removed the action to this court based
on diversity jurisdiction. Notice ¶¶ 5-6. The plaintiffs are citizens of Texas. Id. ¶ 3.
P.A.M. is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas.
Id. Mahamed is a citizen of Michigan. Id.
On December 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint and join Ray Louis Ebarb (“Ebarb”) and Higdon Construction,
Inc. (“Higdon”) as defendants. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended
Complaint (docket entry 12). On December 14, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiffs’ motion. Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First
Amended Complaint (docket entry 13).
On December 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) (docket entry 14). In their
amended complaint, the plaintiffs added Ebarb and Higdon as defendants. Id. at 1.
Both Ebard and Higdon are citizens of Texas. Id.
The plaintiffs filed this motion to remand on December 15, 2016, contending
that the court lacks jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity of citizenship

-2-

between the parties. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (“Motion”) (docket entry 18).
The defendants did not respond to the motion.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits the removal of “any civil action brought in a
[s]tate court of which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The statute allows a defendant to “remove a
state court action to federal court only if the action could have originally been filed in
federal court.” Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc., 2 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 1993).
However, the removal statute must be strictly construed because “removal
jurisdiction raises significant federalism concerns.” Willy v. Coastal Corporation, 855
F.2d 1160, 1164 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 251 (5th
Cir. 2008). Therefore, “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 Insurance Company, 810 F. Supp. 748, 750 (N.D. Tex. 1992) (Means, J.);
see also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corporation v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). The
party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Willy,
855 F.2d at 1164.
There are two principal bases upon which a district court may exercise removal
jurisdiction: the existence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and complete

-3-

diversity of citizenship among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, the removing
defendants have alleged only diversity of citizenship as a basis for this court’s
jurisdiction. See Notice ¶¶ 5-6. The court can properly exercise jurisdiction on the
basis of diversity of citizenship after removal only if three requirements are met:
(1) the parties are of completely diverse citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); (2) none
of the properly joined defendants is a citizen of the state in which the case is brought,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); and (3) the case involves an amount in controversy of more
than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
B. Application
Here, the plaintiffs are citizens of Texas and the defendants Ebarb and Higdon
are also citizens of Texas. Amended Complaint at 1; Notice ¶ 3. Thus, there is not
complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Furthermore, any
contention that joinder of Ebarb and Higdon was improper should have been raised
before the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint on
December 14, 2016. See Borden v. Allstate Insurance Company, 589 F.3d 168, 171 (5th
Cir. 2009) (“[A] diverse defendant can argue that a post-removal joinder is improper
before the court grants the plaintiff leave to amend. Thus, once a court permits postremoval joinder of a non-diverse defendant, the fraudulent joinder doctrine is not
thereafter available.”) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this case.

-4-

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is GRANTED.
This case is REMANDED to the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas. The clerk shall mail a certified copy of this order to the district clerk of
Dallas County, Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
SO ORDERED.

January 11, 2017.

___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

-5-