Quality Fireplaces, Ltd. v. Lennox Hearth Products LLC

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 16 MOTION for the Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction and Realignment of Parties, WITHDRAWING 14 Motion for the Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction and Realignment of Parties, GRANTING 15 MOTION to Withdraw 14 MOTION Motion for the Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction and Realignment of Parties. (Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
QUALITY FIREPLACES, LTD .,
Plaintiff,
v.
LENNOX HEARTH PRODUCTS, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-13-680

ORDER
Pending before the court is defendant Lennox Hearth Products, LLC’s (“Lennox”) original
motion for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and realignment of parties (Dkt. 14), Lennox’s
motion to withdraw that motion (Dkt. 15), and a second motion for the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction and realignment of parties filed by Lennox (Dkt. 16). The motion to withdraw the
original motion (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED. With regard to the second motion for the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction and realignment of the parties, Plaintiff Quality Fireplaces, Ltd. (“Quality”)
is not opposed to Lennox’s request for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, but it is
opposed to Lennox’s motion for realignment of the parties. Dkt. 16 (certificate of conference).
Notwithstanding Quality’s nonopposition to part of the motion, after considering the motion and
applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED in all respects.
I. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Lennox filed a lawsuit against Quality in Montgomery County, Texas, in July 2012
(“Lennox’s Lawsuit”). Id. Quality filed a counterclaim in that lawsuit, alleging damages exceeding
$2,000,000.00. Id. Lennox moved to dismiss the counterclaim because it exceeded the county
court’s jurisdictional limits, and the county court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim.
Id. Quality thereafter filed an independent lawsuit against Lennox in the state district court in

Montgomery County and asserted damages of up to $5,000,000.00 (“Quality’s Lawsuit”). Id.
Lennox removed Quality’s Lawsuit to this court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Id.; see Dkt. 1
(notice of removal). Quality thereafter filed a motion to abate Lennox’s Lawsuit, as it involves the
same parties, circumstances, and dispute as Quality’s Lawsuit. Dkt. 16, Ex. A.
Lennox now requests that the court “exercise its supplemental jurisdiction” over the claims
raised in the Lennox Lawsuit. Dkt. 16. While Lennox cites authority for the proposition that the
court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims within the same controversy (see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367), it does not cite any authority indicating how it proposes for the court to exercise jurisdiction
over claims that are not presently before it. The Lennox Lawsuit has not been removed to this court,
and Lennox has not filed a counterclaim asserting the claims that it asserted in state court. Even if
the Lennox Lawsuit is currently abated, the claims are still before the state court judge. The court
is unaware of any procedure whereby it can, in essence, take a lawsuit from the state court simply
because it may exercise jurisdiction over the claims if the claims were before it. Cf. McClelland v.
Longhitano, 140 F. Supp. 2d 201, 203-04 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Congress never implied nor indicated
that the supplemental jurisdiction provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1367 somehow bestow an
independent source of removal jurisdiction on this court for the benefit of state court litigants
unhappy with the outcome of proceedings there.”). Lennox’s motion for the court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction is therefore DENIED.
Because Lennox’s claims against Quality are not currently before the court, Lennox’s request
to realign the parties so that Lennox is the plaintiff and Quality is the defendant is likewise DENIED.

2

II. CONCLUSION
Lennox’s motion to withdraw its original motion for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
(Dkt. 15) is GRANTED. Lennox’s original motion for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is
hereby (Dkt. 14) WITHDRAWN. Lennox’s second motion for the exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction and realignment of parties (Dkt. 16) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on June 20, 2013.

__________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

3