Alexander v. Louisiana State Board of Private Investigator Examiners et al, No. 2:2018cv02889 - Document 23 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 12 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/18/2018. (blg)

Download PDF
Alexander v. Louisiana State Board of Private Investigator Examiners et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DWAYNE ALEXANDER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 18-2889 LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR EXAMINERS ET AL. SECTION I ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a motion 1 filed by plaintiff to remand this case to state court. Defendants oppose 2 the motion. Plaintiff’s motion is meritless. In his complaint, plaintiff asserts multiple federal causes of action. 3 Thus, the Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, § 1331. Further, despite plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, 4 defendants’ removal complied with the federal removal statute. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (procedure for removal of civil actions). Plaintiff also suggests that the Court has the discretion to remand this entire action, state and federal law claims, to state court on the ground that “state law claims predominate.” 6 At one time, the Fifth Circuit endorsed this position based on the then-current language in the federal removal statute. See Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 328 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e have since R. Doc. No. 12. R. Doc. No. 17; R. Doc. No. 18. 3 See R. Doc. No. 1-3, at 1-38 (plaintiff’s state court petition for damages). 4 See R. Doc. No. 12-1, at 5-7. 5 See R. Doc. No. 1 (notice of removal). 6 R. Doc. No. 12-1, at 7. 1 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com noted that the new § 1441(c) permits courts to remand an entire action, or distinct claims, both state and federal, if state law predominates.”). However, that position appears to have been anything but a settled component of circuit law. See Poche v. Texas Air Corps, Inc., 549 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir. 2008) (“To the extent Laurents conflicts with the later-decided Metro Ford, we are bound to follow Laurents.”); Laurents v. Arcadian Corp., 69 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Although the district court has discretion to remand state law claims that were removed along with one or more federal question claims, it may not remand the component claims that are conclusively deemed to have arisen under federal law, absent a defect in the removal procedure or circumstances rendering the retention of jurisdiction ‘inappropriate.’”). In any event, Congress amended the federal removal statute in 2011 to remove the language upon which plaintiff’s position depended. Finally, plaintiff indicates that he would like an opportunity “to amend [his] petition to remove the federal causes of action.”7 However, the Court will not construe plaintiff’s opposition as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, May 18, 2018. _______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 Id. at 9. 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.