Tucker v. Cyberlux Corporation DO NOT DOCKET - Case electronically transferred to Middle District of North Carolina Durham Div.
4:25-cv-02770
S.D. Tex.Aug 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Phillip Tucker and Neill Whiteley sued Cyberlux Corporation for breach of contract in Texas state court, seeking unpaid salary, bonuses, and incentive payments.
- Cyberlux removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and later sought to transfer the case to North Carolina due to a forum-selection clause in a related agreement.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and sought emergency injunctive relief, including the appointment of a receiver.
- The court also considered the implications of related proceedings: a Texas receivership ordered as part of a separate creditor action against Cyberlux, and a Virginia federal interpleader action involving competing claims to Cyberlux funds.
- Plaintiffs argued that Cyberlux’s principal place of business was Texas (defeating diversity); Cyberlux presented evidence its nerve center is in North Carolina, supporting diversity.
- The forum-selection clause was found to apply, mandating litigation in North Carolina federal or state courts; Plaintiffs did not substantively respond to this argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity Jurisdiction/Remand | Cyberlux is a Texas citizen, defeating diversity | Cyberlux’s headquarters (nerve center) is NC, so diversity exists | Denied remand; diversity jurisdiction exists |
| Temporary Restraining Order/Receivership | TRO and receiver needed to protect potential monetary recovery | No irreparable harm; monetary damages are adequate; prerequisites missing | Denied TRO/receiver; no irreparable harm or legal basis |
| Applicability of Forum-Selection Clause | Clause doesn’t cover Employment Agreement claims | Claims arise from and relate to Purchase Agreement, which has clause | Clause applies; transfer to NC required |
| Motion to Confirm TRO Termination | N/A | Sought order confirming expired state TRO | Denied as moot (order had expired on its own terms) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (defines “principal place of business” as the nerve center for diversity analysis)
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses enforceable via transfer, not dismissal)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) (removing party’s burden to prove federal jurisdiction exists)
- Guy Carpenter & Co. v. Provenzale, 334 F.3d 459 (5th Cir. 2003) (preliminary injunctive relief requires clear showing on all four factors)
- Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron, 703 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2012) (receivership is a harsh remedy, usually requires a judgment)