Case 3:21-cv-00205 Document 1 Filed on 08/06/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`GALVESTON DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-205
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CHARLOTTE MERRILL,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446, Defendant Mitsubishi Tanabe
`
`Pharma America, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Mitsubishi") files this Notice of Removal in the above-
`
`caption action from the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas, to the United
`
`States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Galveston Division based on the
`
`existence of diversity jurisdiction. In support of removal, Mitsubishi respectfully show the Court
`
`as follows:
`
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff Charlotte Merrill (“Plaintiff”) filed her Original Petition
`
`in the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas, Cause No. 21-CV-0972 (the
`
`“State Court Action”). See Exhibit C-1.1 In her Petition, Plaintiff brings three causes of action:
`
`(1) discriminatory discharge in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act,
`
`
`1 In accordance with LR 81(5), an index of all matters being filed is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The state court
`docket sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit B. True and correct copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served on
`or by Defendants in the State Court Action are attached hereto as Exhibit C. A separately signed List of Counsel of
`Record that complies with LR 81(6) is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00205 Document 1 Filed on 08/06/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 5
`
`Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code,2 (2) retaliatory discharge in violation of the TCHRA, and
`
`(3) failure to accommodate in violation of the TCHRA. See Exhibit C-1.
`
`2.
`
`As explained more fully below, removal is proper because the parties are diverse
`
`and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Consequently, Mitsubishi files this Notice of
`
`Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant has timely filed this Notice of Removal. Defendant has 30 days to file
`
`a notice of removal after receipt of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim upon
`
`which such action or proceeding is based. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendant was served
`
`with a copy of Plaintiff’s Original Petition on July 8, 2021. Therefore, the deadline for filing a
`
`notice of removal is Friday, August 6, 2021, and this Notice of Removal is timely.3
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`Texas, Galveston Division, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 124(a)(4) because the Galveston
`
`Division includes Galveston County, where the State Action is pending.
`
`5.
`
`As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a Notice to State Court of Filing of Notice of
`
`Removal, along with a copy of this Notice of Removal, will be promptly filed with the clerk of
`
`the 212th Judicial District of Galveston County, Texas and served on Plaintiff. A copy of the
`
`Notice to State Court of Filing of Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`6.
`
`By removing this action, Mitsubishi does not waive any defenses, objections, or
`
`motions available to it under state or federal law.
`
`
`2 Although the Texas Commission on Human Rights was abolished in 2004, Little v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice,
`148 S.W.3d 374, 377 (Tex. 2004), some courts still refer to Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code as the Texas
`Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). See Johnson v. Select Energy Services, L.L.C., 2013 WL 5425115, at
`*1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2013). For purposes of this Notice of Removal, Mitsubishi will use the same terminology as
`used by Plaintiff in the Original Petition.
`3 The 30-day deadline actually falls on Saturday, August 7, 2021.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00205 Document 1 Filed on 08/06/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 5
`
`II.
`DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
`
`7.
`
`Diversity jurisdiction exists in a civil matter where the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the dispute is between citizens of different
`
`states. Id. at § 1332(a)(1). As addressed below, both of the requirements for diversity jurisdiction
`
`are met in this case.
`
`A.
`
`Diversity of Citizenship
`
`8.
`
`A district court is required to determine whether there is complete diversity only
`
`at the time the plaintiff brings a suit or when a defendant removes a matter to federal court. See
`
`Freeport–McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
`
`9.
`
`As stated in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Plaintiff resided in Galveston County,
`
`Texas, at the time her Petition and this Notice of Removal were filed. See Exhibit C-1, ¶ 3.
`
`10.
`
`An individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
`
`11.
`
`For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any
`
`state in which it has been incorporated and of the state where its principal place of business is
`
`located. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). As clarified by the United States Supreme Court in Hertz
`
`Corporation v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), “the phrase ‘principal place of business’ in §
`
`1332(c)(1) refers to the place where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and
`
`coordinate the corporation’s activities, i.e., its ‘nerve center,’ which will typically be found at its
`
`corporate headquarters.” Id. at 80-81; see also Metroplexcore, L.L.C. v. Parsons Transp., Inc.,
`
`743 F.3d 964, 971 (5th Cir. 2014) (following Hertz for “principal place of business”).
`
`12. Mitsubishi is incorporated in the State of Delaware. Mitsubishi’s corporate
`
`headquarters, including its principal executive and administrative offices, are located in the State
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00205 Document 1 Filed on 08/06/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 5
`
`of New Jersey, which is where the majority of its corporate officers and senior executives and
`
`directors perform the company’s executive and administrative functions. Accordingly,
`
`Mitsubishi’s principal place of business is in New Jersey, and it is a citizen of New Jersey and
`
`Delaware for diversity purposes.
`
`13.
`
`Thus, Mitsubishi is not a citizen of Texas, and there is complete diversity between
`
`Plaintiff and Mitsubishi.
`
`B.
`
`Amount in Controversy
`
`14.
`
`Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) also requires the amount in
`
`controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, be in excess of $75,000.
`
`15. Mitsubishi denies that it is liable to Plaintiff for any amount of damages; however,
`
`the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 because the allegations in Plaintiff’s
`
`Original Petition state as such. See Exhibit C, ¶ 2 (“Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $250,000
`
`but not more than $1,000,000.”).
`
`16.
`
`Accordingly, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(a).
`
`III.
`CONCLUSION
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma America, Inc. respectfully
`
`requests the removal of this action from the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County,
`
`Texas to this Court.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00205 Document 1 Filed on 08/06/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 5
`
`Dated August 6, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Jessica Craft
`Texas State Bar No. 24106824
`Federal I.D. No. 3144196
`LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
`1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
`Houston, TX 77010
`713.951.9400 (Telephone)
`713.951.9212 (Facsimile)
`jcraft@littler.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelley Edwards
`Kelley Edwards (Attorney in Charge)
`State Bar No. 24041775
`Federal I.D. No. 560755
`LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
`1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
`Houston, Texas
`Telephone: 713.951.9400
`Facsimile: 713.951.9212
`kedwards@littler.com
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
`MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 6th day of August, 2021, a true and correct
`copy of the foregoing was served and filed using the Court’s e-filing system and via email upon
`the following counsel of record:
`
`Jennifer J. Spencer
`James E. Hunnicutt
`Sara M. Barfield
`Jackson Spencer Law PLLC
`Three Forest Plaza
`12221 Merit Drive, Suite 160
`Dallas, Texas 75251
`Sent Via Court’s E-Filing System and
`Email: jspencer@jacksonspencerlaw.com;
`jhunnicutt@jacksonspencerlaw.com;
`and sbarfield@jacksonspencerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelley Edwards
`Kelley Edwards
`
`
`
` 4823-9961-4450.1 / 999999-2968
`
`
`5
`
`