Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc.
01-15-00011-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 14, 2015Background
- This is a Texas interlocutory appeal by defendant Bob Deuell from a federal court remand order in Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Deuell.
- Plaintiff initially asserted a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which supported removal to the Southern District of Texas on federal-question jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff later filed a second amended petition on November 5, 2014, dropping the § 1983 claim and a motion to remand.
- On December 23, 2014, Judge Miller granted remand, ruling no federal question remained and considering jurisdiction under supplemental authority.
- Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal arguing the court should have dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and that the motion to dismiss was denied by operation of law; the appeal was accelerated under Rule 28.1.
- The district court remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court and denied defendant’s related motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended complaint was proper under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). | Second amended complaint was timely and proper as a matter of course. | Second amended pleading could be improper if filed without consent or leave, and should not be considered. | Second amended complaint timely and properly filed as a matter of course. |
| Whether remand was appropriate after all federal claims were eliminated. | Federal jurisdiction may still exist or need consideration of ancillary issues. | Remand not appropriate; federal jurisdiction should remain or be preserved for remaining claims. | Remand proper; the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors governing when to retain or remand in the presence of federal claims)
- Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992) (four-factor framework for supplemental jurisdiction)
- Knatt v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 of E. Baton Rouge Parish, 373 F. App’x 438 (5th Cir. 2010) (dismissing or remanding state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed)
- Brim v. ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., 213 F. App’x 303 (5th Cir. 2007) (convenience factor weighs in favor of remand when no geographic hardship)