Whitaker d/b/a The Whitaker Companies, Inc. v. Vista Staffing Solutions, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 11 Opposed MOTION to Remand. By separate order, this case is remanded to the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BRUCE AND BETTY WHITAKER d/b/a/
THE WHITAKER COMPANIES, INC.,
VISTA STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
ON ASSIGNMENT, INC., AND
ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS,
July 12, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-0876
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Bruce and Betty Whitaker, d/b/a the Whitaker Companies, 1 filed this suit in Texas state court,
seeking contractual "eamout" payments related to a business they sold the defendants in December
2013. The defendants timely removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Whitaker moved to
remand on the ground that the purchase agreement waived the defendants' removal rights. (Docket
Entry No. 11). The defendants responded, and the plaintiffs replied. (Docket Entry Nos. 19, 21).
For the reasons explained in detail below, the motion to remand is granted, and this action is
remanded to the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
Bruce and Betty Whitaker, citizens of Texas, owned The Whitaker Companies, Inc. Vista
Staffing Solutions is a Delaware corporation doing business in Texas with its principal place of
Bruce and Betty Whitaker, as well as the Whitaker Companies, are referred to collectively as
business in Colorado; On Assignment is a Delaware corporation with its principal place ofbusiness
in California; and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc./EmCare Division is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Colorado. After learning that Envision Healthcare Holdings
is no longer an active company and that the proper defendant is Envision Healthcare Corp.,
Whitaker amended to assert claims against Envision Healthcare Corp. as successor to Envision
Healthcare Holdings Inc./EmCare Division. (Docket Entry No. 13, 4).
In December 2013, Whitaker contracted with Vista to sell Whitaker Medical, LLC, a Texasbased medical personnel staffing and recruitment business. The parties entered into a Membership
Interest Purchase Agreement, which contained the following forum-selection clause:
Each party (a) submits to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court sitting in
Houston, Texas in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this
Agreement (including any action or proceeding for the enforcement of any arbitral
award made in connection with any arbitration of a Dispute hereunder), (b) agrees
that all claims in respect of such action or proceeding may be heard and determined
in any such court, (c) waives any claim of inconvenient forum or other challenge to
venue in such court, (d) agrees not to bring any action or proceeding arising out of
or relating to this Agreement in any other court and (e) waives any right it may have
to a trial by jury with respect to any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to
this Agreement ....
(Docket Entry No. 11 at 4). On Assignment signed an agreement guaranteeing payment of the
Envision subsequently bought Vista from On Assignment.
Whitaker alleges that the
defendants intentionally reduced Whitaker Medical's growth after the sale to avoid paying the
"Earnout Amount" owed under the Purchase Agreement. (Docket Entry No. 13 ). Whitaker moved
to remand, arguing that the defendants waived their right to remove through the contractual forumselection clause. (Docket Entry No. 11).
"A contractual clause prevents removal where the clause amounts to a 'clear and
unequivocal' waiver of removal rights." Grand View PV Solar Two, LLC v. Helix Elec., Inc./Helix
Elec. ofNev., L.L.C, J V, 847 F.3d 255,257-58 (5th Cir. 2017)(citing City ofNew Orleans v. Mun.
Admin. Servs., Inc., 376 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2004)). "[A] waiver of [a party's] removal rights
does not have to include explicit words, such as 'waiver of right of removal[.]"'
Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 252 F.3d 796, 797 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). "A party may
waive its rights by explicitly stating that it is doing so, by allowing the other party the right to choose
venue, or by establishing an exclusive venue within the contract." Grand View, 847 F.3d at 258
(quoting City of New Orleans, 376 F.3d at 504); see also Waters, 252 F.3d at 797 ("A party to a
contract may waive a right of removal provided the provision of the contract makes clear that the
other party to the contract has the 'right to choose the forum' in which any dispute will be heard.").
"Because removal must be unanimous, a single defendant's waiver of its removal rights is enough
to defeat removal." Grand View, 847 F.3d at 258 (citing Brown v. Demeo, Inc., 792 F.2d 478,481
(5th Cir. 1986))_2 "[ A]ny doubt about the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of remand."
Id. at 258 (quoting Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278,281-82 (5th Cir. 2007))
(alteration in original).
In Waters, the Fifth Circuit held that a forum-selection clause similar to the one at issue here
waived the defendant's right to remove. The clause in Waters stated:
Company consents with respect to any action, suit or other legal proceeding
pertaining directly to this Agreement or to the interpretation of or enforcement of any
Employee's rights hereunder, to service of process in the State of Texas . . . .
Company irrevocably (i) agrees that any such suit, action, or legal proceeding may
The parties appear to agree that if the forum-selection clause in the Purchase Agreement waives
removal, remand is required.
be brought in the courts of such state or the courts of the United States for such state,
(ii) consents to the jurisdiction of each such court in any such suit, action, or legal
proceeding and (iii) waives any objection it may have to the laying of venue of any
such suit, action or legal proceeding in any of such courts.
Waters, 252 F.3d at 797. The court reasoned that the defendant "(1) agreed that [plaintiff] may sue
it in any court of Texas, (2) consented to the jurisdiction of any court in Texas to decide the case, and
(3) waived any objection to venue in any court in Texas[.]" !d. at 798. "A successful removal by
defendant ... would revoke plaintiff's choice to have his case heard [in state court] .... The court
is not free to relieve [defendant] of its contractual waiver ofjurisdiction and venue in [state court]."
The forum-selection clause in the Purchase Agreement, like the one in Waters, gives the
plaintiff the "right to choose" between a state or federal court in Harris County, Texas. See GP
Plastics Corp. v. Interboro Packaging Corp., 108 F. App'x 832,836 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Waters,
252 F .3d at 797). The defendants in both cases consented to the state court's jurisdiction and waived
challenges to venue. The Fifth Circuit held that the "consent to jurisdiction" and waiver of "any
objection" to venue, taken together, created a clear and unequivocal waiver of removal rights if the
plaintiff chose to file suit in state court.
The defendants attempt to distinguish Waters by arguing that it applies only to unilateral
forum-selection clauses, not mutual clauses like the one here. In Waters, the clause pertained only
to the "[c]ompany," the defendant in that case. This clause pertains to "[e]ach party." In Dual
Trucking, Inc. v. JC Instride, Inc., No. 13-cv-2523, 2013 WL 3818357, at *3 (E.D. La. July 22,
2013 ), the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana adopted that distinction, stating that
"the Waters clause gave only one party the exclusive right of forum choice while the clause here
expresses the rights of both parties. "The court denied a motion to remand. A few other courts have
followed this approach. See Spenlinhauer v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 534 F. Supp. 2d 162, 163
(D. Maine 2008); Equity Staffing Group Inc. v. RTL Networks, Inc., No. 13-cv-3510, 2014 WL
2566316, at *4-5 (D. Colo. June 6, 2014) (same). Most courts, however, reject the distinction
between unilateral and mutual forum-selection clauses adopted in Dual Trucking. These courts
reason that a clause requiring both parties to waive jurisdiction and venue objections bars removing
a suit filed in state court, notwithstanding the fact that the agreement was mutual rather than
unilateral. See, e.g., iNet Directories, LLC v. Developershed, Inc., 394 F.3d 1081, 1081-82 (8th Cir.
2005) (per curiam) (citing Waters, 252 F.3d at 797-98); AdvanceMe, Inc. v. Le Magnifique, LLC,
No.1 :13-CV-02175-RWS, 2014 WL 61526, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 8, 2014) (citing Waters, 252 F.3d
at 797-98); Country Creek Farms, LLC v. Fleischer's Bagels, Inc., No. 11-5028,2011 WL 1258139,
at *2 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 201l)(citing iNet, 394 F.3d at 1082); Citimortgage, Inc. v. Loan Link Fin.
Servs., No. 4:07CV1989SNL, 2008 WL 695392, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2008) (citing iNet, 394
F.3d at 1081); Ocwen Orlando Holdings Corp. v. Harvard Prop. Trust, LLC, No. 6:07-CV-1113Orl-31DAB, 2007 WL 2330915, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2007) (citing Waters, 252 F.3d at 79798).
This court agrees with the majority of courts facing similar clauses. Dual Trucking's
distinction of Waters is unpersuasive. 3 Waters did not turn on the fact that only one party had waived
Although the defendants do not press the point, the Dual Trucking court also made much of the
fact that the defendant in Waters had "irrevocably" submitted to jurisdiction and venue in the appropriate
state or federal court. The forum-selection clause in this case does not state that the waiver of jurisdiction
and venue challenges is "irrevocable." However, this court does not find Dual Trucking's reasoning on this
point persuasive. There is no difference between "agreeing" and "irrevocably agreeing" in the forumselection clause at issue here. In either case, the promise is enforceable unless there are legal grounds to
avoid enforcement. The parties agreed that the choice of a state or federal tribunal in Harris County excluded
other tribunals. The presence or absence of the word "irrevocably" does not affect the applicability of the
holding in Waters to the current facts.
its right to object to jurisdiction or venue in a particular court. The primary difference between
Waters this case is that, here, the parties' mutual agreement to waive jurisdiction and venue
objections creates a first-mover advantage rather than vesting forum-selection rights in only one
party. Under the Purchase Agreement in this case, the party initiating the litigation could choose
whether to proceed in state court or federal court, as long as it was in Harris County, Texas. The
other party cannot challenge that choice. Whitaker sued first and therefore had a contractual right
to choose whether the forum would be a state or federal court in Harris County, Texas. It chose state
court. Whitaker, Vista, and On Assignment all agreed to accept that choice when they signed the
Purchase Agreement containing the forum-selection clause. The case must be remanded.
The motion to remand is granted. (Docket Entry No. 11 ). By separate order, this case is
remanded to the 127th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.
SIGNED on July 11,2017, at Houston, Texas.
Lee 1 Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?