PERKEREWICZ v. SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN CORPORATION et al, No. 1:2020cv00273 - Document 17 (D. Me. 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER on 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (clp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PERKEREWICZ v. SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN CORPORATION et al Doc. 17 Case 1:20-cv-00273-DBH Document 17 Filed 10/07/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 204 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JESSICA M. PERKEREWICZ, PLAINTIFF V. SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 1:20-CV-273-DBH DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND The plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court is DENIED. The Amended Complaint states claims for relief explicitly under federal statutes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. ¶ 1981. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44, 51, 56-57, 65-66, 73-74, 78-79, 8384, 88-89, 93-94 (ECF No. 1-18). Whether the plaintiff regards her claims as “primarily State Law claims,” Mot. to Remand ¶ 8 (ECF No. 11), is irrelevant once she has stated a direct federal claim under a federal statute. “The jurisdictional question is determined from what appears on the plaintiff’s claim, without reference to any other pleadings.” Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federación de Ajedrez de Puerto Rico, Inc., 734 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted). The federal court must entertain such a suit. Id. at 36. “It is immaterial that a claimant in retrospect views her federal claims as surplus . . . .” Id. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00273-DBH Document 17 Filed 10/07/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 205 The plaintiff seems to suggest that her case could not be removed because one of the defendants may have defenses under state workers’ compensation laws. Mot. to Remand ¶¶ 4, 6, 7, 9-10, 17. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) says: “A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.” I see nothing in the Amended Complaint to suggest that her claims arise under Maine workers’ compensation laws. If they did, the remedy would be severance and remand of that claim against that party, not the entire lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(2). Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
