United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MARIA S. WINFIELD, Plaintiff,
QUIKTRIP CORPORATION and JORDAN CHAPMAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Maria Winfield's Motion for Remand
(Doc. 4). In this slip-and-fall case, Plaintiff contends that
this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff is
a citizen of the same state as Defendant Jordan Chapman.
See Doc. 4, Pl.'s Mot. for Remand, ¶ 20.
Defendants, however, suggest that this Court has diversity
jurisdiction because Defendant Chapman was improperly joined.
Doc. 5, Defs.' Resp., 14. Because the Court concludes
that it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to
consider this dispute, the Court GRANTS IN
PART Plaintiff's motion for remand (Doc. 4). But
because the Court declines to award Plaintiff attorneys'
fees, the Court also DENIES IN PART
October 8, 2017, Plaintiff Maria Winfield walked into a
Quiktrip gas station in Garland, Texas. Doc. 1-2, Ex. 8,
Pl.'s First Am. Pet., ¶¶ 7-8. When exiting the
store, Plaintiff slipped on water and fell, injuring her
ankle. Id. ¶ 9. She alleges that Defendant
Jordan Chapman, a Quiktrip store employee, used a water hose
to wash down the pavement outside of the store, id.,
and this action caused her injuries. Id. ¶ 10.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings two claims against Defendants
Chapman and Quiktrip: negligence and premises liability,
respectively. Id. ¶¶ 11-13.
the facts of this case are simple, the procedural history is
more complicated. Initially, Plaintiff filed suit against
only Defendant Quiktrip in state court. See Doc.
1-2, Ex. 1, Pl.'s Orig. Pet. After Plaintiff allegedly
failed to clarify the amount of damages she sought, see Doc.
1, Notice of Removal, 7, Defendant Quiktrip removed the
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.
See Doc. 1-2, Ex. 3, Def.'s Notice of Removal.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, see
Pl.'s Mot. for Remand, Winfield v. Quiktrip
Corp., No. 3:19-cv-0612-E (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2019), ECF
No. 4, which the district court denied based on a finding of
diversity jurisdiction. See Order, Winfield v.
Quiktrip Corp., No. 3:19-cv-0612-E (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4,
2019), ECF No. 8.
upon receiving Jordan Chapman's name through a disclosure
from Defendant Quiktrip, see Doc. 4, Pl.'s Mot. for
Remand, ¶¶ 3-5, Plaintiff filed a motion to file an
amended complaint, seeking to name Chapman as a defendant in
the suit. See Pl.'s Mot. for Leave, Winfield
v. Quiktrip Corp., No. 3:19-cv-0612-E (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4,
2019), ECF No. 22. Defendant Quiktrip did not respond to the
motion. See generally Winfield v. Quiktrip Corp.,
No. 3:19-cv-0612-E (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2019), ECF Nos. 22-25.
The district court granted the motion, and because the
joinder of Defendant Chapman destroyed diversity between the
parties, remanded the case to state court. Order at 1,
Winfield v. Quiktrip Corp., No. 3:19-cv-0612-E (N.D.
Tex. Oct. 4, 2019), ECF No. 25.
remand, Plaintiff served Defendant Chapman with her first
amended petition. See Doc. 1-2, Ex. 8, Pl.'s
First Am. Pet.; Doc. 1-2, Ex. E, Case Information, 3-4. Then,
Defendants Quiktrip and Chapman timely filed another notice
of removal. See Doc. 1, Defs.' Notice of
Removal. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed another motion
to remand, which is now before this Court. See Doc.
4, Pl.'s Mot. for Remand. Since the Court has received
all briefing for the motion, it is now ripe for review.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), “[a]n order remanding a case
to the State court from which it was removed is not
reviewable on appeal or otherwise, ” except in
civil-rights cases against federal officers and agencies.
This rule operates to divest not only appellate courts of
jurisdiction to review remand orders, but also district
courts. See Tenbrook v. Am. Home Prods., 2005 WL
767723, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2005). Moreover,
“[t]his bar to appellate review . . . is narrower than
the text of the statute would suggest”-only remands
based on certain grounds are unreviewable. See Fontenot
v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 718 F.3d 518, 520 (5th Cir.
2013) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, the bar on review of
remand orders extends to orders based on 28 § U.S.C.
1447(e). See Fontenot, 718 F.3d at 520-21 (citing
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551
U.S. 224 (2007)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...