Siemens Water Technologies LLC vs Sooter Case has been remanded to, No. 4:2014cv00049 - Document 15 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 3 Emergency MOTION to Remand, denying as moot 14 Opposed MOTION to Consolidate Lead Case No. 13-cv-01832 and Member Case No. 13-cv-01832. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Siemens Water Technologies LLC vs Sooter Case has been remanded to Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff, v. DARNELL SOOTER, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-00049 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Emergency Motion to Remand Siemens Water Technologies, (Document No.3) 1 LLC's Having carefully considered the motion, response, reply, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion to remand should be GRANTED. Plaintiff Siemens Water Technologies, LLC provides water and wastewater treatment products, ("Siemens" ) 2 systems, and Also pending is Defendant's Opposed Motion to Consolidate (Document No. 14). Because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED as moot. See Washington v. Burley, Civ. A. No. 3-12-154, 2012 WL 5289682, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012) (Costa, J.) ("The relationship between consolidation and subject matter jurisdiction has arisen in cases in which defendants improperly removed cases with no basis for federal jurisdiction and then sought to establish jurisdiction by consolidating the removed cases with other federal cases. The courts addressed the remand issue first because a court must have jurisdiction over a case before it can start applying procedural mechanisms like consolidation.") . 1 2 On January 16, 2014, Siemens Water Technologies LLC changed its legal name to Evoqua Water Technologies LLC. Document No. 11 at 1. Dockets.Justia.com services for industrial, business, and municipal customers.3 Defendant Darnell Sooter ("Sooter") began work for Siemens in 1996 as a Dispatcher. 4 She later was promoted to Office Manager, and then to Mobile Manager. 5 In 2012, Sooter was "transitioned" to a non-managerial Administrative Functional Support role. 6 alleges that in Sooter 2002, executed a Siemens Confidentiality and Development Agreement (the "Confidentiality Agreement"), in which she promised not to use or disclose any of Siemens's confidential information. 7 Throughout Sooter's employment, Siemens also issued a series of confidentiality and data security policies prohibiting employees from taking or misusing Siemens's "trade-secret, confidential and proprietary information."8 In June, 2013, Sooter filed Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation claims against Siemens and two related entities,9 based upon her position. demotion Sooter v. to Administrative Siemens Industry, 3 Document No. 1-1 ~ the 4 Id. 5 Document No. 1-1 6 Id. ~ Id. ~ Civ. A. No. (Orig. Pet.). 16. 8 13 et al, Support Id. 7 ~ Inc., Functional 17. 15. ~ 15. 9 Siemens, Siemens Industry, Inc., and Siemens Water Technologies Holding Corp. are defendants in the Title VII suit. 2 13-cv-1832, Document No. alleges that, Sooter 1 (the "Title VII suit") .10 Siemens in the course of discovery in the Title VII suit, produced information. 11 documents containing Siemens's confidential Siemens alleges that these documents revealed that Sooter since as early as 2001, has been "copying, taking and retaining" Siemens's confidential information, and that she sent some to her attorney's of this office. 12 information to her mother and After an investigation into Sooter's conduct, Siemens terminated her on November 11, 2013. 13 Siemens brought this suit in state court against Sooter for breach of contract and misappropriation. 14 to this Court based on federal Sooter removed the case question jurisdiction supplemental jurisdiction over Siemens's claims. 15 and Siemens moves to remand. 16 I. Under 28 U.S.C. § Legal Standard 1441, an action filed in state court may be removed to federal court when (1) federal jurisdiction exists and 10 The Title VII suit was assigned to Judge Keith Ellison. 11 Document No. 1-1 12 Id. ~~ 13 Id. ~ 14 Document No. 1-1. 15 Document No.1. 16 Document No.3. ~~ 21-24. 25-26. 29. 3 (2) the removal procedure is properly followed. The removing party bears the burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists over the controversy. F.3d 387, 397 Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chern. Co., 149 (5th Cir. 1998). Any doubt about the propriety of the removal is to be resolved in favor of remand. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 See Acuna v. (5th Cir. 2000); Walters v. Grow Grp., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1030, 1032 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (Harmon, J.) . Federal jurisdiction exists if a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises a claim that arises under federal law. § 1331. 28 U.S.C. Generally, a plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429 (1987). However, even where a plaintiff expressly relies only on state law claims, his complaint may nevertheless arise under federal law in certain circumstances where the state law claim necessarily raises a substantial federal issue. 523 F.3d 546, 551 (5th See Bernhard v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, Cir. 2008) ("The federal courts have jurisdiction over a state law claim that 'necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. ''') (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2368 Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., "A defendant (2005)). 4 cannot establish federal question jurisdiction merely by showing that federal law will 'apply' to a case or that there is a plaintiff's state law causes of action." 'federal issue' in the Heston v. AAA Apartment Locating, No. C-09-151, 2009 WL 2244497, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 24, 2009) (Jack, J.) (citing Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995)). Sch. Nor can a defendant rely on federal issues that may be present in a defense. Bernhard, 523 F.3d at 551 ("Even an inevitable federal defense does not provide a basis for removal jurisdiction. ") . II. Discussion In her Notice of Removal, Sooter argues that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Siemens's claims arise under patent law and are related to whether Siemens has an affirmative defense to liability in her separate Title VII suit, and that the Court possesses supplemental jurisdiction because the claims made in this suit are compulsory counterclaims that must be raised in her Title VII suit. 17 A. Siemens's claims do not 'arise under' federal patent law "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. 17 Document No.1. 5 II • 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a) . Sooter asserts signed by Sooter defines that the Confidentiality Agreement "Confidential Information" to include "Developments," which are in turn defined to include "works of authorship whether or not copyrightable, and other works (whether or not patentable • ) • " 18 Hence, she argues, the Court has original jurisdiction as a claim under patent law. That the Confidentiality "Confidential information" Agreement's definition of should include- -among other things-- Siemen's intellectual property that mayor may not be copyrightable or patentable, does not make this a suit arising copyright or patent laws of the United States. under the Siemens makes no such claim under the patent laws, but rather alleges only state law claims for breach of presence of the words Confidentiality Agreement "patent" do not and create question for adjudication in this case. Advanced Uroscience, The mere contract and misappropriation. Inc., 239 F.3d 1277, "copyright" a in the substantial federal See Uroplasty, Inc. v. 1280 (Fed. (plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract, Cir. 2001) breach of fiduciary duty, and trade secret misappropriation did not 'arise under' federal patent law merely because plaintiff alleged that former employee used its trade secrets in the preparation and filing of a patent application because "the mere presence of the patent does not create a substantial issue of patent law."). 18 Id.; Document No. I-I, ex. 2 at 3. 6 B. That Siemen's state law claims may constitute an affirmative defense or compulsory counterclaim in Sooter's Title VII case is not a substantial question of federal law in this case Sooter argues that the resolution of Siemens's claims "necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law, i.e. whether [Siemens has] an affirmative defense of after acquired evidence" in the Title VII suit. 19 The presence of Sooter's Title VII case in federal court is not a basis for removal jurisdiction over Siemens's state law claims where the Court otherwise lacks See Energy Mgmt. original jurisdiction. Servs., Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255, 260 (5th Cir. 2014) LLC v. City of ("That a related case was pending in federal court [iJs not in itself sufficient grounds for removal Freeman, under 466 F.2d 28 U.S.C. 689, 693 1441.") § (7th Cir. (quoting 1972)). Fabricius Moreover, v. a substantial and necessary federal question must be present on the face of Siemens's well-pleaded complaint, and cannot be found by looking to defenses that might be raised in the present action, let alone by looking to those that may come up in a separate action. See Bernhard, 523 F.3d at 551. Similarly, Sooter's supplemental jurisdiction theory is without merit. Even if Siemens's claims are compulsory counterclaims that must be raised in the Title VII suit, which Siemens 28 U.S.C. 19 § disputes, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 1367, does not provide for removal jurisdiction. Document No. 1 at 3. 7 See Halmekangas v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 603 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 2010) ("Supplemental jurisdiction on its own does not give federal courts the power to remove a state case that does not arise from a federal ci tizenship. ") .20 question or Accordingly, offer complete diversity of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Siemens's request for an award attorneys' fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. III. of § unspecified costs and 1447(c) is DENIED. Order For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Remand (Document No.3) is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to the 410th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk will mail a certified copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Clerk Montgomery County, of Texas, the 410th Judicial District as required by 28 U.S.C. § Court 1447, of and 20 See also Sovereign Bank, N.A. v. Lee, No. CV 13-2756, 2013 WL 5081731, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2013) ("The Removing Defendants allege the existence of federal question jurisdiction based upon the assertion that the foreclosure action is either related to, or constitutes a compulsory counterclaim in the pending [federal suit]. . . . [I] t is well settled that neither theory can support removal. Where, as here, no federal claim is stated on the face of Plaintiff's complaint, and the only basis asserted for removal is a claim of a related defense, counterclaim or other pending action, the matter is properly remanded to the state court./) 8 shall notify all parties and provide them with a true copy of this ~ Order. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this ~day of February, 2014. WERLEIN, JR. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9
]]>
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.
