United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOING DENYING MOTION TO
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
action relates to claims of unlawful employment practices,
including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the
basis of race, skin color, ethnicity, and national origin by
Defendant Legal Sea Foods, LLC (“LSF”). Currently
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Patrick
Louis' (“Louis”) Motion to Remand. [ECF No.
9]. For the reasons explained herein, the Motion to Remand is
25, 2018, Louis filed this action in Suffolk County Superior
Court (“Superior Court”). [ECF No. 1-1]. The
initial complaint did not clearly assert a federal cause of
action. See id. On January 24, 2019, Louis filed an
Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 1-6], which asserted claims under
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. These are
federal causes of action. On February 1, 2019, LSF removed
the action to this Court. [ECF No. 1]. On March 1, 2019,
Louis filed a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b). He argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over
his state law claims and that the removal was otherwise
procedurally improper. [ECF No. 9 at 1]. On March 15, 2019,
LSF filed its Opposition to the Motion to Remand [ECF No.
States district courts have “original jurisdiction of
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which
the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the
district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. With certain
exceptions, “a notice of removal may be filed within
thirty days after receipt by the defendant . . . of an
amended pleading . . . from which it may first be ascertained
that the case is one which is or has become removable.”
28 U.S.C. § 1446.
a claim “arises under” federal law depends on the
“well-pleaded complaint” rule. Merrell Dow
Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). As a
general proposition, a suit “arises under the law that
creates the cause of action.” Franchise Tax Bd. of
Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463
U.S. 1, 8 (1983). A case may also arise under federal law if
the state-law right necessarily turns on the construction of
federal law. Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808.
contrary to the assertions made in Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand, the Amended Complaint asserts claims that arise under
federal laws. Specifically, the first and second causes of
action allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the
third and fourth causes of action allege violations of Title
VII of the of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e et seq. [See ECF No.
1-5]. These causes of action are created by, and therefore
arise under, federal law. The Court also has supplemental
jurisdiction over the asserted state law claims, as they
“form part of the same case or controversy, ” 28
U.S.C. § 1367, given that the state law claims
“derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.”
City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522
U.S. 156, 165 (1997). LSF timely removed the action to this
Court by filing its notice of removal eight days after it was
served the Amended Complaint. [See ECF No. 1]. The
case was therefore properly removed based on the claims
asserted, and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this
action so long as the complaint includes federal claims.
See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) (district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction state law
claims if the district court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction).
assertions that the removal was procedurally improper are
likewise unavailing. Louis claims that LSF failed to include
required state court documents with its removal, to notify
the state court of the removal, to file a notice of
appearance, and to serve process of the notice of removal on
Louis. [ECF No. 9 at 13-20]. Upon a review of the record, the
Court finds these assertions are without merit. [See
ECF Nos. 1 through 1-7, 8 through 8-18].
the Motion to Remand [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.
Louis' requests for attorney's fees and Rule 11
sanctions are also DENIED. If the Plaintiff
continues to want this case to proceed in state court, he
must move to dismiss his federal claims, otherwise the case
will be litigated in federal court.