Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corizon Health, Inc. v. Whitehead

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 26, 2017

CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN T. WHITEHEAD, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          Schiller, J.

         According to Corizon Health, Inc., it overpaid one of its nurses, John Whitehead, to the sum of close to $30, 000. Corizon sued Whitehead in state court, alleging a claim for breach of contract and a claim for unjust enrichment and seeking reimbursement for the alleged overpayment. Whitehead removed the case to this Court. He argues that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Corizon's claims are preempted by federal law and therefore the Corizon complaint includes a federal question. Presently before the Court is Whitehead's motion to dismiss Corizon's complaint as well as Corizon's motion to remand. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion to remand and denies as moot the motion to dismiss.

         I. BACKGROUND

         John Whitehead is a nurse who had worked for Corizon Health in the City of Philadelphia Correctional facilities. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Whitehead worked for Corizon from August 1, 2013 through June 1, 2015. (Id. ¶ 11.) According to Corizon, “[d]uring that timeframe, Corizon Health mistakenly paid [Whitehead] time and one-half (1½) his regular hourly rate of pay, including shift differentials, for hours that the terms and conditions of employment provided were straight time hours.” (Id. ¶ 12.)

         Whitehead worked a modified weekend schedule of two sixteen hour shifts on Saturday and Sunday and was paid for thirty-six hours at a straight time rate, including differentials. (Id. ¶ 13.) Corizon also claims that it mistakenly paid Whitehead time and one-half his regular rate of pay for hours worked that did not require payment of the increased rate. (Id. ¶ 14.) The Complaint then details the specific overpayments made during the course of Whitehead's employment. (Id. ¶¶ 15-97.) The overpayments totaled $28, 710.62. (Id. ¶ 98.) When confronted with the overpayments, Whitehead denied any knowledge. (Id. ¶¶ 99-101.) Corizon disputes Whitehead's ignorance. (Id. ¶¶ 105-13.) Although the terms and conditions of Whitehead's employment required that he inform Corizon of any overpayments, he failed to do so. (Id. ¶¶ 114-15.) Whitehead refuses to return the overpayments. (Id. ¶ 117.)

         Corizon sued Whitehead for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that the terms and conditions of Whitehead's employment only allowed him overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week. (Id. ¶¶ 119-131.)

         On April 20, 2017, Whitehead removed this litigation from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In the notice of removal, Whitehead claims that prior to reaching an agreement about the overpayments, Corizon fired Whitehead, “in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.” Whitehead then grieved the firing as lacking just cause under the collective bargaining agreement. Whitehead argues that Corizon's claim for overpayment arises under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, which allows for violations of a collective bargaining agreement to be brought “in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” On April 27, 2017, Whitehead filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

         Whitehead claims that Corizon's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims are preempted by federal law. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def. John Whitehead's Mot. to Dismiss [Whitehead Mem.] at 5-9.) Specifically, Whitehead asserts that Corizon's claim cannot be adjudicated without interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore the claim is one arising under the Labor Management Relations Act, which thus preempts Corizon's state law claims. (Id.)

         On May 19, 2017, Corizon filed a motion to remand. Corizon contends that this Court must remand because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. According to Corizon, its state law claims are not preempted because the resolution of its claim does not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Corizon brought state law claims against Whitehead. Whitehead contends, however, that federal question jurisdiction exists because Corizon's state law claims are preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). The Court disagrees that the particular claims raised by Corizon are preempted by federal law.

         Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). In order to hear a case, the court must have both personal jurisdiction over all parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation. Parties may neither waive subject matter jurisdiction nor may they confer it upon the court by consent. United Indus. Workers v. Gov't of V.I., 987 F.2d 162, 168 (3d Cir. 1993).

         The law grants subject matter jurisdiction to the federal district courts over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, a defendant may remove a civil action that could have originally been brought by the plaintiff in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants . . . .”). Here, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction-and therefore Defendant can remove-only if Plaintiff's complaint presents a federal question. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

         It is the defendant's burden to show the existence of federal jurisdiction. See Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 540 (1939); Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990). In considering whether to remand, “[b]ecause lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.” Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1995). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.