Simpson v. Energy Petroleum Co.
4:17-cv-02501
E.D. Mo.Oct 31, 2017Background
- Simpson sued in Missouri state court asserting an MHRA age-discrimination claim; he later amended to add Count II (Missouri wage-and-hour, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505) and Count III (federal FLSA claim).
- Defendants removed to federal court on Sept. 29, 2017, claiming federal-question jurisdiction based on Count III; defendants filed their copy of the notice of removal in state court on Oct. 5, 2017.
- On Oct. 2, 2017 (before the state court received the removal copy), the state court entered an order dismissing the FLSA claim (Count III).
- Plaintiff then filed a voluntary dismissal of Count III in federal court and later sought to convert that notice into a Rule 15 amendment (motion later denied as moot).
- Defendants argued removal was effective when they filed in federal court (so the state dismissal was void) and, alternatively, that Count II (the Missouri wage claim) necessarily raises federal questions because it references the FLSA.
- The district court held removal was not effective until the notice was filed in state court, Count III was properly dismissed in state court before removal became effective, and Count II does not present a substantial federal question under Grable; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-court dismissal of the FLSA claim was effective despite defendants’ earlier filing of a federal notice of removal | Simpson: state court retained jurisdiction until it received the removal notice; the Oct. 2 dismissal of Count III is valid | Defendants: state court lost jurisdiction upon filing of notice in federal court, so the dismissal is void | The court held removal is effective only when the notice is filed with the state court; the Oct. 2 state dismissal of Count III was valid |
| Whether the remaining Missouri wage-and-hour claim (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.505) "arises under" federal law to support federal-question jurisdiction | Simpson: no federal question appears on the face of the petition; any federal law issues would be defenses or guidance only | Defendants: § 290.505 references FLSA/Portal-to-Portal, so resolving Count II requires interpreting federal law and thus creates federal jurisdiction under Grable | The court held Count II does not meet Grable’s test (no necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial federal issue); no federal-question jurisdiction |
| Whether removal was proper based on Grable federal-issue doctrine | Simpson: Grable’s narrow test is not met; references to federal law do not federalize the state claim | Defendants: the statute’s cross-reference to FLSA makes the federal issue central | Held: Grable inapplicable—statutory reference insufficient to create a substantial federal issue |
| Whether plaintiff’s motion to convert his voluntary dismissal to an amendment should be granted | Simpson: sought conversion to correct procedural posture | Defendants: opposed | The court denied the conversion motion as moot after remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. Runyon, 76 F.3d 210 (8th Cir. 1996) (removal is effective only when the notice is filed in the state court)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (establishes narrow test for when a state-law claim "arises under" federal law)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal defenses do not authorize removal)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (mere presence of a federal element in a state cause of action ordinarily does not confer federal jurisdiction)
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (Grable is a small, special category; requires substantial, nearly pure federal issue)
- Bowler v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs., LLC, 123 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (E.D. Mo. 2015) (E.D. Mo. decision holding § 290.505’s reference to the FLSA does not federalize state wage claims)