Reinaldo Taylor v. Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Co
744 F.3d 944
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Taylor was employed by Bailey Tool & Manufacturing for about one year until his December 7, 2007 layoff.
- Taylor filed EEOC and TWC discrimination charges on December 26, 2007; EEOC issued right-to-sue January 10, 2011.
- Taylor filed a state court petition on March 4, 2011 alleging Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 discrimination and retaliation.
- On December 18, 2012, Taylor amended the petition to add Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims.
- Bailey removed the case to federal court after the amended petition; Bailey moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- The district court held that Texas relation-back law governed and that Rule 15(c) did not revive time-barred claims; Taylor appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(c) can revive time-barred federal claims after removal. | Taylor argued federal claims relate back to original petition under Rule 15(c). | Bailey argued state relation-back law applies; no revival under Rule 15(c). | No; Rule 15(c) does not revive time-barred claims after removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pac. Emp’rs Ins. v. Sav-A-Lot, 291 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002) (applies analogous state rules to relation back; federal rules do not retroactively apply to pre-removal events)
- Anderson v. Allstate Ins., 630 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (uses analogous state rules for relation back rather than Rule 15(a) after removal)
- O’Carolan v. Puryear, 70 F. App’x 751 (5th Cir. 2003) (state rules govern tolling and relation back before removal (unpublished))
- Tompkins v. Cyr, 202 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2000) (federal rules do not apply to filings in state court prior to removal)
- Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp., 811 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1987) (federal rules do not apply to pre-removal pleadings)
- Braud v. Transp. Serv. Co., 445 F.3d 801 (5th Cir. 2006) (state rules govern pre-removal proceedings and relation back)
- In re Meyerland Co., 960 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc: removal preserves pre-removal state-law basis; case comes into federal system as left)
- Mullen v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 887 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1989) (removal does not deprive a limitations defense available under state law)