Billiards & Brews, LLC v. City of Knoxville Tennessee, 3:21-cv-00120

Background:

Billiards & Brews filed suit in Knox County Chancery Court challenging the City of Knoxville’s adoption of a post-10:00 p.m. curfew on on-premises food and drink and the revocation of its beer permit.
The Complaint contains five counts; Count Three expressly alleges the curfew violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and requests declaratory and injunctive relief under federal and state constitutions.
The City removed the case to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on Count Three; Billiards & Brews moved to remand arguing all claims arise under the Tennessee Constitution and the federal reference is only a “mere reference.”
The City opposed, pointing to Count Three’s express invocation of the federal Equal Protection Clause.
The district court applied the well-pleaded-complaint rule and the principle that removal statutes are strictly construed, noting the removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
The court concluded Count Three presents a federal question because it affirmatively alleges a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and denied the motion to remand.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case presents a federal question permitting removal	The Complaint arises under the Tennessee Constitution; any federal reference is only a “mere reference” and does not create federal jurisdiction	Count Three expressly alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, creating federal-question jurisdiction	The court held federal-question jurisdiction exists because the Complaint affirmatively asserts a federal constitutional claim
Whether an invocation of federal law in a count is 'mere reference' that cannot support removal	The reference to federal law is incidental and should not convert a state action into a federal case	The explicit pleading of an Equal Protection violation is not mere reference but an asserted federal claim	The court distinguished Skaggs and found the invocation here is an asserted federal claim, not a mere reference
Whether the prayer for relief limited to the Tennessee Constitution negates federal jurisdiction	The prayer requests relief under Tennessee law only, so there is no federal claim	Jurisdiction depends on the claims pleaded, not the label of the prayer for relief	The court held the prayer’s wording does not defeat federal-question jurisdiction because Count Three alleges a federal claim
Whether remand should be ordered despite the federal claim	Remand appropriate because claims are principally state constitutional issues	Removal proper because a federal constitutional claim appears on the face of the Complaint	The court denied remand and retained jurisdiction based on the federal claim

Key Cases Cited

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (articulates the well-pleaded-complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
Gully v. First Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1936) (early statement on federal-question jurisdiction principles)
Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2000) (party seeking removal bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ont. v. City of Detroit, 874 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1989) (removal petitions strictly construed; doubts resolved against removal)
Ohio ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 549 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes a mere reference to federal law from an expressly pleaded federal claim)
Paul v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Ohio, 701 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2012) (discusses application of the well-pleaded-complaint rule)