The issue in this personal injury case was the timeliness of removal. personal injury case was removed from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction 30 days after Freeman voluntarily non-suited the lone non-diverse party. Slip op. at 1-2. Freeman claimed she was injured while at work at the Silver Creek Manor Nursing Home. Her suit named the companies and partnerships apparently involved in the ownership of the nursing home, three of which had names beginning with “SMV.” Id. at 1-2. SMV Management LLC, the Texas resident filed an answer that denied any association with the nursing home. At the other defendants’ request, Freeman voluntarily dropped SMV Management LLC from the suit. Id. at 2. Thirty days after receiving the non-suit, the other defendants removed. Id. Freeman moved to remand, arguing that the 30-day removal period was triggered by well before the non-suit. The District Court agreed, finding that SMC Management LLC’s answer made it “unequivocally clear” that the non-diverse defendant was improperly joined, meaning the case was removable at that time under Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2002). Slip op. at 4-5.
Judge Rodriguez Grants Motion for Reconsideration and Dismisses Section 1983 Claims
Foddrill v. McManus, No. SA-13-CV-51-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)
Motions for reconsideration rarely yield a different result. This opinion is one of those rarities. Foddrill claimed that San Antonio violated his constitutional rights by issuing a Criminal Trespass Warning (CTW) banning him from city properties from July 1, 2009 through April 1, 2013. Slip op. at 1. A month before the ban expire, Foddrill filed this pro se section 1983 action. Id. The District Court denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, rejecting their argument that Foddrill’s claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The District Court concluded that Foddrill’s claims were subject to the continuing violation doctrine, which tolls limitations until the challenged conduct ceases. Id. at 2. In this opinion, the District Court determined the doctrine was inapplicable and dismissed Foddrill’s claims. Id. at 2-8.
Judge Rodriguez Finds ADA Case Timely
In this employment case, the narrow issue was whether the plaintiff received his Notice of Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC more than ninety days prior to suit, in which case his suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments would be barred. Slip op. at 1. In response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (which was converted into a motion for summary judgment), Gordon submitted his affidavit and the affidavit of a neighbor to demonstrate that a mail mishap delayed his receipt of the EEOC’s Right to Sue Letter and he filed suit within the 90-day window. Id. at 3. The District Court determined this evidence created a fact issue and denied the motion. Id. at 3-4.