Wes Burch and Janice Burch d/b/a Integrative Communications v. Technical Systems Integrators, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER denying 4 Motion to Remand; Insofar as the Motion to Remand may be construed as an implied motion for leave to amend the Petition which, if granted, would destroy diversity jurisdiction by including a permissive defamation claim to this breach of contract action, it is DENIED, without prejudice to being reurged, in proper form, on the merits..(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
WES BURCH and JANICE BURCH
d/b/a Integrative Communications
V.
TECHNICAL SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS,
LLC

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-11-192

ORDER
On April 18, 2011, this diversity action was removed from the 405th Judicial District Court
of Galveston County, Texas. Following the removal, Plaintiffs, on April 27, 2011, filed an
Amended Petition with the state court adding a non-diverse Defendant, Jimmy Finger. Thereafter,
on May 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction based upon
the Amended Petition.
Under these unusual circumstances, the Court FINDS that the Amended Petition is of no
jurisdictional consequence in this Court and is not an impediment to any further proceedings in
this federal litigation.
Insofar as the Motion to Remand may be construed as an implied motion for leave to
amend the Petition which, if granted, would destroy diversity jurisdiction by including a
permissive defamation claim to this breach of contract action, it is DENIED, without prejudice
to being reurged, in proper form, on the merits. Cf. Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179,
1182 (5th Cir. 1987)
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the “Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand” (Instrument no. 4) is
DENIED.

The Court expresses no opinion as to the viability, if any, of the Amended Petition in the
state court.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

21st

2

day of June, 2011.