The case involved a former Time Warner employee who sued in Texas state court alleging age discrimination and retaliation for seeking worker’s compensation benefits, both under the Texas Labor Code. The defendant removed the action to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff moved to remand on the ground that worker’s compensation retaliation claims are non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The court granted the motion to remand the entire case, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits removal only of a civil action as a whole and that severance of claims is unavailable when the basis for removal is diversity rather than a federal question.
This case arose from the 2010 shooting death of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernández Güereca by a U.S. Border Patrol agent across the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso, Texas, while the boy was on the Mexican side. Plaintiffs sued the United States and federal agencies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for wrongful death, negligence, and excessive force; under the Constitution for alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations; and under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for violations of the law of nations. The court granted the government's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Claims One through Nine and Eleven for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the FTCA's foreign country exception applied because the injury occurred in Mexico, that the ATS does not waive sovereign immunity, and that the constitutional claims against the United States were likewise barred.
The case Villela v. Hinojosa involved Petitioner Socorro Villela challenging her expedited removals from the United States under immigration law, claiming she is a U.S. citizen by birth in Texas despite previous admissions of Mexican citizenship. She sought a writ of habeas corpus to review the determination of her alienage and the lawfulness of her removals pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1252(e)(2). The court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner was not in custody at the time of filing, as her removal orders had been executed, which is a prerequisite for habeas relief. Additionally, the Real ID Act of 2005 limits judicial review of removal orders to petitions in the courts of appeals, further barring district court jurisdiction in this matter.
This case involves a petition by an NLRB regional director for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against El Paso Disposal, L.P., a garbage collection company. The petition alleged that the employer committed unfair labor practices during first-contract bargaining with the certified union, including bad-faith bargaining over dues check-off, unilateral changes to sick-leave and other policies without notice or bargaining, and direct dealings with employees, which caused or prolonged a strike. The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted the injunction, ordering interim bargaining, rescission of unilateral changes, and reinstatement of striking employees. The core reasoning was that the petitioner had shown reasonable cause to believe violations occurred and that the strike was an unfair-labor-practice strike, and that interim relief was just and proper to preserve the Board's remedial authority and prevent irreparable erosion of employee support for the union.
The case concerns the sale of real property in Texas between a Michigan plaintiff and Texas defendants, which the defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. After the defendants added Texas-based third-party defendants, those third parties moved to remand the case to state court, citing the forum defendant rule in § 1441(b) and arguing they had the right to seek remand under §§ 1441 and 1448. The court denied the motion, holding that any defect under the forum defendant rule was a waivable procedural issue not raised by the plaintiff within the 30-day limit of § 1447(c), and that third-party defendants have no statutory right to move for remand.
The case involved multiple defendants charged with RICO violations and RICO conspiracy arising from their alleged roles in the Barrio Azteca prison gang's extortion of drug traffickers in El Paso, Texas, to fund imprisoned members; a jury convicted them after a trial featuring testimony from gang members and other witnesses. The defendants moved for a new trial, arguing that the government failed to disclose in discovery certain information in the presentence report about murders ordered by other gang leaders, which they claimed would have affected witness credibility and their own relative culpability, and that the jury's transportation to the courthouse was prejudicial. The court denied the motions, finding that the relevant details had been provided in FBI 302 reports disclosed during trial, that the witnesses in question were already extensively cross-examined on related matters, and that no Brady violation or other basis for a new trial had been shown.