Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amrhein v. Prosperity Bank

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

May 21, 2018

DARLENE C. AMRHEIN
v.
PROSPERITY BANK, ET AL.

          NOWAK JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On March 8, 2018, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #28) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff Darlene C. Amrhein's Motion to Remand (Dkt. #11) be denied, and ordering that Plaintiff's Second Motion for Stay and Continuance of this Lawsuit for “Good Cause” Reasons (Dkt. #17) be denied. Having received the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #28), having considered Plaintiff's objections (Dkts. #31, #32, #58) and responses (Dkt. #39, #40), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's report should be rejected and the case remanded to state court.

         BACKGROUND

         On December 6, 2016, Plaintiff Darlene C. Amrhein, represented by counsel, sued Defendants Prosperity Bank, Jo'el Doe, Keena Clifton, and Naomi Thames for various state law claims related to her employment at Prosperity Bank, in the 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from the state court matter on September 6, 2017 (Dkt. #1-12). Since her counsel's withdrawal, Plaintiff has proceeded pro se.

         In the state court, Defendants Prosperity Bank and Keena Clifton (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff thereafter responded to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and filed her own Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #1-17). Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and her own Motion for Summary Judgment appears to indicate that she is pursuing claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Defendants then removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division on January 8, 2018 (Dkt. #1). Defendants allege that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff has partially based her suit on claims under federal statutes: Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA.

         On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand (Dkt. #11), arguing that “[t]here is ‘no federal question' in this transferred case as Texas has adopted Labor Laws [and] Discrimination Laws [and] all Defendants have never been served in that case [and] this case” (Dkt. #11 at p. 2). On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed her “Second Motion for Stay and Continuance of this Lawsuit for ‘Good Cause' Reasons” (“Motion to Stay”), seeking to stay the instant case while she recovers from back surgery (Dkt. #17). On March 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be denied, and also ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay be denied (Dkt. #28).

         On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed two documents objecting to the Report and Recommendation and Order Denying Stay: (1) her “Motion for Reversal of March 8, 2018 Order On Denied ADA Medical Stay & [sic] Medial Care Until Recovery of Two Surgeries for ‘Good Cause' Reasons” (Dkt. #31); and (2) “Objections & [sic] Arguments to Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak Signed March 8, 2018 & [sic] Abuses” (Dkt. #32). On March 27, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and to Require Posting of Security (Dkt. #39), and their Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #40). Defendants move to strike Plaintiff's objections for: (1) exceeding Local Rule CV-72(c)'s page limit; and (2) Plaintiff's inappropriate and abusive allegations (Dkt. #39). The Court denies Defendants' Motion to Strike on the basis of page limits.

         On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff's Objections & [sic] Responses to Defendants['] Motion for Attorney Fees; Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and to Require Posting of Security” (Dkt. #47). On April 10, 2018, Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #48).

         On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff further filed her “Updated New Medical Information for ‘Good Cause' Reasons that Require a Medical Stay Under Americans With Disabilities Act/ ADA & [sic] Existing Constitutional Civil Rights Issues” (Dkt. #53), raising new health concerns and attaching additional medical documentation not provided to the Magistrate Judge to support her assertion that an indefinite medical stay is warranted in this case. The Court construes such filing as a request to the District Court to review the Magistrate Judge's denial of a stay. Defendants have not specifically responded to such filing.

         On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed her “Responses & Objections to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response and 2nd Supplement to their Motion for an Order Determining Plaintiff Darlene Amrhein [ ] to be a Vexatious Litigant & Requesting Security, Plaintiff's 3rd Supplement Objections, Invalid & No. Adverse Orders” (Dkt. #54). On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second set of objections: “Plaintiff's Objections to this Federal Court Banned from Transferring this Lawsuit on Texas Wages, Texas Unemployment, Texas Worker's Compensation for Injuries, which Devalues this Employment Lawsuit & Refused Service of Process of All Named Defendants & other ‘Good Cause' Reasons” (Dkt. #58).

         PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS

         The Court now considers each of Plaintiff's aforementioned filings and any objections stated therein to the Report and Recommendation and Order Denying Stay. At the outset, the Court notes, that the majority of Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. #32) are nonsensical fragments and clauses, unrelated to the findings regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Remand or Motion to Stay.

         Plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.