Wood v. Cognex Corporation
1:25-cv-10023
D. Mass.May 21, 2025Check TreatmentDocket
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page1of7
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Andre Wood
Plaintiff,
Vv. Civil Action No.
25-10023-NMG
Cognex Corporation et al.,
Defendants.
tet eee ee eet ee ee
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
Plaintiff, Andre Wood (“plaintiff” or “Wood”), filed this
action in state court based upon allegations of employment
discrimination. Defendant, Cognex Corp. (“Cognex”), subsequently
removed the case to this Court and plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that added defendant, BlackTree Technical Group, Inc.
(“BlackTree”). Now pending before the Court is the motion of
plaintiff to remand to state court. For the reasons that
follow, his motion will be denied.
I. Background
Defendant BlackTree is a staffing and recruitment firm
located in Woburn, Massachusetts, which places employees in
companies that specialize in software and similar technological
fields. Defendant Cognex, a mechanical device manufacturer
headquartered in Natick, Massachusetts, is one such company.
- 1] -
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 2 of 7
In October, 2021, BlackTree hired plaintiff as an
independent contractor to work at Cognex’s headquarters as an
engineering technician. Six months later, plaintiff experienced
a purported “flare-up” of an unidentified “health condition” and
notified “his employer” that he needed a temporary medical
leave.! Approximately one week later, his work assignment at
Cognex was terminated. Plaintiff also alleges that he endured
“racially motivated abuse” while at Cognex when another employee
“display[ed] . . . a noose” to him and dared him to “report the
incident.”
In October, 2024, Wood filed suit against Cognex in the
Massachusetts Superior Court and Cognex removed the case to this
Court on federal questions grounds. Now plaintiff moves to
remand, asserting that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because his complaint alleges no federal causes of
action.
Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint that, in
addition to state-law claims under the Paid Family Medical Leave
Act (“PEMLA”), M.G.L. c. §175M, and M.G.L. c. §151B, alleges
that Cognex violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., and that BlackTree
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
1 Plaintiff’s complaint frequently refers to “his employer” without specifying
whether he intends to refer to Cognex, BlackTree or both.
-2-
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 3of7
§12101. In his amended complaint, plaintiff further submits
that this Court “has . . . jurisdiction over this action”
following removal by Cognex.
Because plaintiff initially moved to remand but has since
filed an amended complaint that realleges federal causes of
action and concedes that this Court has “jurisdiction over this
f
action,” it is doubtful whether plaintiff intends to pursue his
motion to remand. As Cognex correctly suggests, other circuits
have concluded that motions to remand are waived when, as here,
a plaintiff subsequently amends his complaint to include federal
causes of action. See, e.g., Kidd v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 891 F.
2d 540, 547 (5th Cir. 1990). Out of an abundance caution
because of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court presumes
plaintiff’s intention to proceed with his motion to remand.
Accord Ayala Serrano v. Lebron Gonzalez, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st
Cir. 1990) (“{P]leadings are to be liberally construed[] in
favor of [a] pro se party.”).
Ir. Legal Standard
When an action is removed to federal court, a plaintiff is
entitled to have the case remanded to state court if either 1)
the method of removal under 28 U.S.C. §1441 was improper or
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 4of7
2) the district court lacks original jurisdiction. Gentile v.
Biogen Idec, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 313, 316 (D. Mass. 2013).
The original jurisdiction of this Court extends to, among
other things, cases in which the plaintiff’s claims arise under
federal law. 28 U.S.C. $1331; Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257
(2013). If a complaint includes claims that arise under both
federal law and state law, the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims as well, so long as the
state and federal claims all derive from the same common
“nucleus of operative fact.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(a); United Mine
Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
When assessing the nucleus of operative facts, the Court
must exercise its discretion to determine whether “the facts and
witnesses between the two sets of claims are essentially
different” or are otherwise not temporally related. Serrano-
Moran v. Grau-Gaztambide, 195 F.3d 68, 70 (lst Cir. 1999). If
the Court finds a common nucleus is present, it may nevertheless
decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if, among
other reasons, those claims “substantially predominate” over the
federal claims, whether in terms of the issues raised or the
remedy sought. 28 U.S.C. §1367{c) (2); Allstate Interiors &
2 Plaintiff does not suggest that the method of removal was improper here.
- 4 -
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 5of7
Exteriors, Inc. v. Stonestreet Const., LLC, 730 F.3d 67, 73 (1st
Cir. 2013) (citing Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 762).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff first suggests that there is no federal question
raised in his amended complaint and, therefore, the Court lacks
original jurisdiction. The allegations in his amended
complaint, however, render that argument unavailing.
Plaintiff's first amended complaint, just as his original
complaint, asserts causes of action that arise under federal
law, namely a claim against BlackTree under the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
§12101, and a claim against Cognex under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§2000e et seq. In light of those federal claims, jurisdiction
in this Court is proper. Cf. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v.
Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25 (2025) (requiring remand if a
plaintiff amends his complaint by removing all federal claims).
Plaintiff further responds that his state-law claims, for
violations of the PFMLA, M.G.L. c. §175M, and for racially
motivated abuse under M.G.L. c. §151B, do not arise from the
same common nucleus of operative facts, and substantially
predominate over, his federal law claims. The facts allegedly
giving rise to those state-law claims are, however, nearly
identical to those underlying his federal claims. Plaintiff’s
causes of action under the PFMLA and ADA concern allegations
that plaintiff was wrongly terminated following his request for
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 6 of 7
medical leave. His claims under Title VII and §151B, in turn,
derive from his allegation that a Cognex employee displayed a
noose. The facts underlying each of plaintiff’s allegations,
moreover, all purportedly occurred during his brief work
assignment at Cognex and his requests for damages, in the form
of back pay and monetary damages, are included in all of his
claims.
Based upon the substantial similarities between the facts
underlying plaintiff’s claims and his request for relief, there
will be significant overlap in the witnesses and evidence
necessary to prove his state and federal claims. Jurisdiction
over those claims is therefore proper and his state-law claims
do not predominate. See Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inc.,
730 F.3d at 73; cf. Serrano-Moran, 195 F.3d at 70 (upholding a
decision to remand where state and federal claims involved
different witnesses and evidence and occurred at different
times). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be
denied. See Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1176
(lst Cir. 1995) (affirming exercise of jurisdiction over federal
Title VII claim and state employment law claims).
Case 1:25-cv-10023-NMG Document 29 Filed 05/21/25 Page 7 of 7
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to remand of
plaintiff, Andre Wood (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.
So ordered.
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: May ZI , 2025