907 F. Supp. 2d 1311
S.D. Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiffs moved to remand after removal; court resolves the motion with partial grant and partial denial.
- Complaint contains four counts: Count One under Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act; Counts Two–Four at common law for breach of contract, fraud, and outrageous conduct.
- Parties agree Count One is barred from removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c); question is remand status of remaining counts.
- Removal basis is diversity of citizenship; Court analyzes interplay between § 1441(a) and § 1445(c).
- Eleventh Circuit Reed v. Heil Co. holds worker’s compensation claim must be remanded; other claims may stay in federal court if properly removed.
- Court follows Reed to remand Count One and retain Counts Two–Four in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts Two–Four must be remanded despite Count One remand. | Reed requires remand of entire action or all non-removable claims. | Removal under § 1441(a) allows retention of federal/retained state claims; severance possible under 1441(c) not applicable here. | Counts Two–Four may remain; Count One remanded. |
| What is the controlling mechanism for removal in this context. | § 1445(c) restricts removal of workers’ compensation claims; argues it governs all or necessary severance. | Removal occurred under § 1441(a) with diversity; Reed supports retaining non-removable state claims elsewhere. | Removal proper under § 1441(a); 1445(c) governs only Count One. |
| Does Reed v. Heil Co. control in diversity removals as to partial remand. | Reed applies only to federal-question removals and not diversity removals. | Reed applies to removals under § 1441(a) regardless of jurisdictional basis; distinguishes from 1441(c). | Reed controls; partial remand of Count One and retention of Counts Two–Four is proper in diversity context. |
| Can judicial economy justify remanding more claims to state court. | Remanding related state-law tort claims could promote economy. | Court cannot remand non-removable federal-law claims for economy; statutory limits apply. | No remand of Counts Two–Four on economy grounds; continue in federal court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055 (11th Cir. 2000) (workers’ compensation claim cannot be removed; ADA claim retained)
- City of Mobile v. City of Mobile Health, 75 F.3d 605 (11th Cir. 1996) (reaffirms limits on remand; piecemeal removal concerns)
- New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1997) (discusses § 1445(c) jurisdictional-based limitation on removal)
- Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 2008) (removal under § 1441(a) and subsequents; diversity context)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (removal principles; severability and jurisdictional considerations)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (supplemental jurisdiction and related removal principles)