Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc.
852 F. Supp. 2d 986
M.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Ron and Beverly Nollner filed a Tennessee state court suit against SBC, IMB, and GES alleging Tennessee contract, promissory estoppel, TPPA, and retaliatory discharge claims, plus a DFA claim added in the First Amended Complaint.
- IMB, a SBC subsidiary, posted a New Delhi construction-related job with a 24–36 month term and a spouse involvement, and the Nollners accepted and relocated preparations for an extended assignment.
- Allegations include pre-arrival contracting without competitive bidding, use of “dummy” entities, substandard and unsafe construction, incomplete records, delayed building specifications, and bribes to officials, with improper permits signed on IMB’s behalf.
- Mr. Nollner reported concerns internally; later, in October 2010, he was terminated after resisting resignation, leading to DFA and related state-law retaliatory-discharge theories; affidavits by Nollner and his attorney were filed and later targeted by strike motions.
- The court granted in part and denied in part, dismissed the DFA claim with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, and remanded the case to Davidson County Circuit Court; several related motions to strike were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DFA claim survives as a federal question | Nollners contend DFA provides whistleblower protections for FCPA disclosures | Defendants assert DFA does not reach FCPA-related private claims and/or non-issuers | DFA claim dismissed with prejudice (no federal question) |
| Whether the FCPA disclosures can support a DFA retaliation claim | Nollner reported FCPA concerns and seeks DFA protection | FCPA violations by non-issuers fall outside SEC jurisdiction; no private DFA remedy | DFA claim dismissed; court declines expansion to non-issuer FCPA context |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists over the state-law claims | State claims based on Tennessee law; federal question present via DFA | No federal question unless DFA survives | No substantial federal question; DFA dismissed; jurisdiction over state claims declined; remand to state court |
| Whether the court should retain jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims | Remand only if federal questions persist | Preserve federal jurisdiction over state ones | Declines supplemental jurisdiction; remands to state court |
| Whether removal was proper and venue proper; and related venue/choice-of-law questions | State-law venue concerns and potential Virginia law implications | Venue considerations contested; federal forum not appropriate for remaining claims | Venue/choice-of-law issues not addressed on the merits; remand for state proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 545 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 2005) (establishes substantial federal question jurisdiction under Grable)
- Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (federal question jurisdiction where state-law claim hinges on federal issue)
- Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 201 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2000) (remand when no federal question remains and no complete diversity)