Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-24-2022

Case Style:

Robert Baker v. Othon, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 22-cv-985

Judge: Gary H. Miller

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Harris County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Houston Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.


Defendant's Attorney: Odean L. Volker

Description: Houston, Texas personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a breach of contract theory.

This case was filed in the 215th Judicial District Court, Harris County, TX, 21-82987, and was removed to federal court by Defendant.


Baker sued the defendants on December 22, 2021, in the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, alleging, among other claims, a breach of a contract regarding the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). Dkt. 1, Ex. 1 at 1,14. On March 25,2022, the defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 ¶ 6-11. Specifically, the defendants argue that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts Baker's breach of contract claim because the ESOP is an ERISA benefit plan. Id. Because the defendants believe the court has federal question jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim, they argue the court should extend jurisdiction over the remaining state claims in the suit through supplemental jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 ¶ 12-14.

On April 24, 2022, Baker filed his first amended complaint, which removed count two and any reference to the ESOP to avoid ERISA preemption. See Dkt. 5. On the same day, Baker filed the instant motion to remand the case to state court, arguing that subject matter jurisdiction no longer existed. Dkt. 6 at 3, 4. The defendants counter that removal was proper at the time of removal, and that the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Dkt. 12 at 1,2.


Outcome: For the reasons given above, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims in this case. Therefore, Baker's motion (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: