United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 93-1771.
Rose M. CARPENTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WICHITA FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Feb. 15, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-appellant Rose M. Carpenter (Carpenter) sued the
Wichita Falls Independent School District (the School District)
simultaneously in state and federal courts, complaining in the
federal forum of a First Amendment violation, in the state forum of
a breach of contract and a violation of her right to free speech
under the Texas constitution. Asserting the existence of federal
jurisdiction over the state-law claim, the School District timely
removed the state case to federal court. The case is now before us
on interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the district
court's denial of Carpenter's motion to remand the state case. We
reverse and remand.
Facts and Proceedings Below
Carpenter, a twenty-year employee of the School District,
worked as an administrator from 1984 to 1990. In that capacity,
she coordinated the budget and course content for the district's
science curriculum. In early 1990, the School District proposed an
1
administrative restructuring plan, to which Carpenter vocally
objected. Subsequently, the School District reassigned Carpenter,
demoting her from district-wide administrator to vice principal of
a high school for "at-risk" students. Carpenter alleged that she
was reassigned because of her objections to the restructuring plan
and that the consequences of this reassignment were a reduction in
responsibility, a promised reduction in pay,1 and a violent
physical assault by a student.
After challenging her reassignment through internal grievance
procedures, Carpenter, on May 22, 1992, filed two separate suits
against the School District, one in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division,
and one in the 89th Judicial District Court of Wichita County,
Texas. Both suits alleged that the transfer violated her
free-speech rights. Carpenter based her state suit claims entirely
and exclusively on state law, that is, on Texas contract and
constitutional law. The only claim asserted in her federal suit,
on the other hand, was under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Asserting federal-question jurisdiction over the state suit
free-speech claim, the School District removed the state case to
federal court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The state suit
was then consolidated with the pending federal suit. The district
court denied Carpenter's motion to remand the state suit, but
1
According to Carpenter, the School District said a cut in
pay would follow a year of work in her new position. To date,
the School District has not reduced her salary.
2
certified the question for interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. §
1292(b). We granted leave to appeal and, finding no federal
jurisdiction over Carpenter's state suit, now reverse.
Discussion
We begin with general principles. The denial of a motion to
remand an action removed from state to federal court is a question
of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory construction
subject to de novo review. Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp.
of Am., 938 F.2d 591, 593 (5th Cir.1991). To support removal, the
defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction
over the state-court suit. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel
Co., 257 U.S. 92, 42 S.Ct. 35, 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921). Moreover,
because the effect of removal is to deprive the state court of an
action properly before it, removal raises significant federalism
concerns, see Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478
U.S. 804, 809, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3233, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986), which
mandate strict construction of the removal statute. Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107, 61 S.Ct. 868, 872, 85
L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164
(5th Cir.1988).
The defendant's right to remove is statutory. Section 1441 of
the Judicial Code keys the propriety of removal to the original
jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Removal under section
1441(b), the basis of removal here, is appropriate only for those
claims within the federal question jurisdiction of the district
courts, that is, for those actions "arising under the Constitution,
3
laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A determination that a cause of action presents a federal
question depends upon the allegations of the plaintiff's
well-pleaded complaint. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley,
211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). Generally, under
section 1331, a suit arises under federal law if there appears on
the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of
federal law. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 12, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2848, 77 L.Ed.2d
420 (1983). Accordingly, to support removal, the defendant must
locate the basis of federal jurisdiction in those allegations
necessary to support the plaintiff's claim, ignoring his own
pleadings and petition for removal. A defendant may not remove on
the basis of an anticipated or even inevitable federal defense, but
instead must show that a federal right is "an element, and an
essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action." Gully v. First
Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 111, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936).
The plaintiff is thus the master of her complaint. Healy v.
Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U.S. 479, 480, 35 S.Ct. 658, 659, 59
L.Ed. 1056 (1915) ("the plaintiff is absolute master of what
jurisdiction he will appeal to"); The Fair v. Kohler Die &
Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22, 23, 33 S.Ct. 410, 411, 57 L.Ed. 716
(1913) ("the party who brings a suit is master to decide what law
he will rely upon"); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1167
(5th Cir.1988). A plaintiff with a choice between federal- and
state-law claims may elect to proceed in state court on the
4
exclusive basis of state law, thus defeating the defendant's
opportunity to remove, but taking the risk that his federal claims
will one day be precluded. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3233 n. 6, 92 L.Ed.2d
650 (1986) ("Jurisdiction may not be sustained on a theory that the
plaintiff has not advanced."); Travelers Indemnity Company v.
Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754, 758 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 885,
107 S.Ct. 277, 93 L.Ed.2d 253 (1986); 1A James W. Moore & Brett A.
Ringle, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.160 (2d ed. 1979) (noting the
freedom of the plaintiff to "ignore the federal ground and rely on
the state ground").
However, in certain situations where the plaintiff
necessarily has available no legitimate or viable state cause of
action, but only a federal claim, he may not avoid removal by
artfully casting his federal suit as one arising exclusively under
state law. Although a defense, preemption may so forcibly and
completely displace state law that the plaintiff's cause of action
is either wholly federal or nothing at all. Avco Corp. v. Aero
Lodge No. 735, Int'l Assn. of Machinists, 390 U.S. 557, 559, 88
S.Ct. 1235, 1237, 20 L.Ed.2d 126 (1968). As one leading treatise
has explained,
"[I]n many contexts plaintiff's claim may be one that is
exclusively governed by federal law, so that the plaintiff
necessarily is stating a federal cause of action, whether he
chooses to articulate it that way or not. If the only remedy
available to plaintiff is federal, because of preemption or
otherwise, and the state court necessarily must look to
federal law in passing on the claim, the case is removable
regardless of what is in the pleading. If, however, there is
a choice between federal and state remedies, the federal
courts will not ignore the plaintiff's choice of state law as
5
the basis for the action." 14A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §
3722 (2d ed. 1985).
This doctrine represents a narrow exception2 to the rule requiring
the basis of federal question jurisdiction to be found on the face
of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint and not in any
anticipated defense.
The artful pleading doctrine recognizes that the
characterization of a federal claim as a state claim will not in
all cases prohibit removal when the plaintiff has no state claim at
all. The doctrine does not convert legitimate state claims into
federal ones, but rather reveals the suit's necessary federal
character. See Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 23, 103 S.Ct. at
2854 (announcing that this exception to the well-pleaded complaint
rule "stands for the proposition that if a federal cause of action
completely preempts a state cause of action any complaint that
comes within the scope of the federal cause of action necessarily
"arises under' federal law"). Absent such extraordinary
2
The Supreme Court has required that the preemption be
complete. Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. 23, 103 S.Ct. at 2854.
Moreover, it is the cause of action, and not a remedy, that must
be preempted. See Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92
L.Ed.2d 650 (1986).
So far as we are aware, the Supreme Court has clearly
sanctioned the rule only in the area of federal labor
relations law and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), the latter on the basis of its
legislative history references to the former. See
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 62-66,
107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546-48, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987) (ERISA).
6
circumstances,3 the well-pleaded complaint rule governs, id. at 8,
103 S.Ct. at 2846, as does its corollary. See Powers, 719 F.2d at
766. That is, if a plaintiff indeed has a viable state law claim,
he may depend on it alone and thereby defeat attempts at removal.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 391 & n. 7, 107 S.Ct.
2425, 2429 & n. 7, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (noting that, because the
plaintiff is the "master of the claim," "he or she may avoid
federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law") (footnote
omitted).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the face of
Carpenter's state pleadings. The state court complaint
("petition") alleges violations of state law only, in particular "a
violation of Plaintiff's right to free speech under the Texas
Constitution, Article I, § 8." Although never asserting federal
preemption of the Texas right to free speech, the School District
has on several occasions suggested that this constitutional
provision is "essentially" a federal claim in disguise. This
argument, standing alone, disregards principles of federalism; it
ignores the superiority of state-court forums for state-law claims
and denigrates the state's authority to fashion independent
constitutional law. With regard to the latter proposition, the
Supreme Court has recognized that every state has a "sovereign
right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more
3
As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the artful pleading
doctrine should apply "only in exceptional circumstances as it
raises difficult issues of state and federal relationships and
often yields unsatisfactory results." Salveson v. Western States
Bankcard Association, 731 F.2d 1423, 1427 (9th Cir.1984).
7
expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution."
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 79, 100 S.Ct.
2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). For this reason, "[i]t is
fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by ...
[the federal courts] in interpreting their state constitutions."
Minnesota v. National Tea Company, 309 U.S. 551, 555, 60 S.Ct. 676,
679, 84 L.Ed. 920 (1940).
The right to free speech under the Texas Constitution is
broader in some respects than its federal counterpart both in
wording and in substance. The state provision reads, "Every person
shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinion on any
subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no
law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the
press." Tex. Const. art. I, § 8. Unlike the First Amendment, this
language is affirmative and not prohibitory,4 a distinction that
led drafters of the 1876 Texas Constitution to reject a proposal to
replace this language with that of the federal version. See
Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 5 & n. 13 (Tex.1992); see also
O'Quinn v. State Bar of Texas, 763 S.W.2d 397, 402 (Tex.1988) ("it
is quite obvious that the Texas Constitution's grant of free speech
is more broadly worded than the first amendment's").
The broader language permits a broader right. According to
the Texas Supreme Court, "[I]n some aspects our free speech
provision is broader than the First Amendment." Davenport, 834
4
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press...." U.S. Const. amend. I.
8
S.W.2d at 8. See also Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 556
(Tex.1989); O'Quinn, 763 S.W.2d at 402; Channel 4, KGBT v.
Briggs, 759 S.W.2d 939, 944 (Tex.1988) (Gonzalez, J., concurring).
To equate these distinct constitutional provisions would be, in
effect, to deny the reality and the possibility of a more expansive
state liberty. We therefore cannot construe a claim brought under
Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Bill of Rights to be essentially
or necessarily federal in character.
The School District nevertheless argues that the "right to
freedom of speech is so strongly a federal claim that even the
state courts of Texas use analysis of the First Amendment freedom
of speech for the analysis of the state corollary. The state
claim, thus, contains essentially a federal claim." The Texas
courts' possible reliance on the rules and reasoning of federal
constitutional case law and scholarship in no way diminishes the
independence of the state right. If, for instance, the Texas
Supreme Court plainly based one of its holdings on the state, and
not the federal, constitution, then that independent and adequate
state ground would deny the possibility of review by the United
States Supreme Court—regardless of the Texas court's reliance on
federal case law.5 Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1039, 103
5
By negative inference, section 1257 of the Judicial Code
prohibits Supreme Court review of state law determinations
rendered by that state's supreme court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The
Court therefore cannot review a case that rests on an independent
and adequate state ground because treatment of any federal issue
would be nugatory. Because federal courts may only hear cases or
controversies under Article III, it is unconstitutional for the
Court to issue mere advisory opinions. See Michigan v. Long, 463
U.S. 1032, 1036-43, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3474-78, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201
9
S.Ct. 3469, 3476, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). As the Supreme Court has
recognized, a state court may choose "merely to rely on federal
precedents as it would on the precedents of all other
jurisdictions," thereby employing federal cases "for the purpose of
guidance." Id.; see, e.g., State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 471 A.2d
347, 352 (1983). In short, regardless of its formative reliance on
federal law, the Texas constitutional right to free speech is not
essentially federal, and to present a Texas constitutional claim is
not necessarily to present a federal claim.
The unsurprising conclusion that there is nothing essentially
federal about a claim based on the Texas Constitution is confirmed
by the School District's concession at oral argument that, had
Carpenter filed the state complaint originally in the federal
district court, it would not present a federal question. The
School District thereby admitted that there was no basis for
removal jurisdiction independent of the concurrent federal suit.
This concession should resolve the statutory question because,
under the express terms of section 1441, only those cases that
could be filed originally in federal court may be removed there.
28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at 18 n.
18, 103 S.Ct. at 2851 n. 18.
The School District, however, does not base its argument on
the terms of section 1441, but rather on a footnote to a 1981
Supreme Court case, Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie,
452 U.S. 394, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). In Moitie,
(1983).
10
the plaintiffs had filed and lost an antitrust suit in federal
court. Instead of appealing, two of the plaintiffs thereafter
filed a near-identical suit in state court, this time purportedly
based exclusively on state law. Defendants then removed that suit
to the federal district court, which denied the plaintiffs' motion
to remand and ruled the action barred by res judicata. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed the removal but reversed on the merits. The
Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the preclusion issue.
See Moitie, 452 U.S. at 394, 101 S.Ct. at 2426 ("The only question
presented in this case is whether the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit validly created an exception to the doctrine of res
judicata."). In footnote two of an opinion dedicated to the issue
of res judicata, the Supreme Court affirmed the removal, observing
that "at least some of the claims had a sufficient federal
character to support removal" under the artful pleading doctrine,
Moitie, 452 U.S. at 396 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. at 2427 n. 2, without
citing controlling precedent and without identifying what
specifically about the state-law claims was federal in character.
Relying exclusively on this enigmatic footnote, the School
District argues that, by electing to simultaneously pursue a
parallel federal suit, Carpenter has somehow endowed her state suit
with a "sufficient federal character" to support removal.6
6
We acknowledge that the Second Circuit has endorsed this
interpretation of footnote two. In Travelers Indemnity Company
v. Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754 (2d Cir.1986), the court ruled that,
once a plaintiff files a federal suit, he is "not free to abuse
the dual court system by filing in state court a second lawsuit
and resubmitting his claim as one based solely on state law."
Id. at 761. The court then acknowledged that "[t]his
11
Whatever Moitie does mean, we are confident it does not mean so
much. The context of the decision counsels against such a broad
interpretation. Moitie is a res judicata case, not a removal case.
The decision centered on the Ninth Circuit's creation of a novel
exception to the rule of res judicata, an issue the Court was
evidently eager to reach. Furthermore, the marginal treatment of
the removal issue makes us hesitate to expand Moitie beyond its
facts, for a broad interpretation would counter principles
established long before, and reaffirmed after, footnote two was
written.7
We do not believe the Court could have intended, in a case for
which the removal issue was neither presented nor briefed, to bring
about a significant revision of removal jurisprudence, especially
one so at odds with precedent and with the language and policy of
interpretation ... limits but does not abolish the
master-of-the-complaint rule." Id. For the reasons stated in
our opinion, we join the Ninth Circuit in preferring a narrower
interpretation. See Sullivan v. First Affiliated Securities,
Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir.1987); see also footnote 11, infra.
7
In Franchise Tax Board, which followed Moitie, the Court
unanimously reaffirmed every major principle of removal under
section 1441(b) without mentioning, citing, or in any way
clarifying that earlier footnote. This fact alone led one lower
court to conclude that Franchise Tax Board "supersedes" Moitie.
Magic Chef, Inc. v. International Molders Union, 581 F.Supp. 772,
776 n. 4 (E.D.Tenn.1983). Likewise, in Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987),
another unanimous decision, the Court suggested that the artful
pleading doctrine should be limited to cases involving complete
preemption of the state cause of action. Id. at 392, 396 & n.
11, 107 S.Ct. at 2430, 2432 & n. 11.
12
section 1441.8 We cannot interpret this footnote to mean that
simply because a plaintiff could have joined his state-law claim
with his parallel claim in federal court, his state action thereby
acquires a federal character sufficient to support removal.9 In
short, we cannot say that the failure to make a state claim pendent
makes it federal. Just as a federal court may not enjoin a state
action for the same cause simply because it is proceeding
concurrently, see 28 U.S.C. § 2283,10 likewise a federal court may
8
Certainly the Court did not purport to alter the law of
removal; indeed, the tone of the footnote is "striking in its
cautiousness." Rona L. Pietrzak, Comment, Federated Department
Stores v. Moitie: A Radical Departure From Traditional Removal
Jurisdiction or an Aberration?, 43 Univ.Pitt.L.Rev. 1165, 1178
(1982).
9
We also cannot regard the Court's treatment of the removal
issue as a simple mistake or misstep. Because Justice Brennan's
dissent targeted footnote two, "[t]he only conclusion is that the
Court said what it meant and meant what it said." Robert A.
Ragazzo, Reconsidering the Artful Pleading Doctrine, 44 Hastings
L.J. 273, 307 (1993). Compare Stanley Blumenfield, Jr., Comment,
Artful Pleading and Removal Jurisdiction: Ferreting Out the True
Nature of a Claim, 35 UCLA L.Rev. 315, 365 (1987) (arguing that
Moitie's ruling on the removal issue should be disregarded). See
also Gold v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 580 F.Supp. 50, 53 n.
1 (S.D.N.Y.1984) ("Although it is perhaps impossible
intellectually to reconcile Moitie with established law, it seems
proper, absent more direct and fuller consideration of the issue
by the Court, to view the result as an aberration....").
10
The federal anti-injunction statute provides that a
federal court "may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in
a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,
or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see also Mitchum
v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972).
With regard to duplicative actions in state and federal courts,
the Court has remarked,
"Each court is free to proceed in its own way and in
its own time, without reference to the proceedings in
the other court. Whenever a judgment is rendered in
one of the courts and pleaded in the other, the effect
13
not take it on removal.
If there was any federal character at all to the plaintiffs'
state-law claims in Moitie, it must be the federal law of
preclusion. In Moitie, the plaintiffs filed their state claim only
after their federal statutory claim had gone to federal court
judgment against them. Under traditional federal rules of res
judicata, the state-law claim was barred. The plaintiffs chose not
to appeal, but to outflank the effect of the federal district
court's judgment. See Ultramar America Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d
1412, 1417 (9th Cir.1990). Although we recognize that the state
courts are able and required to apply federal rules of res
judicata, the federal law preclusive effect of the federal judgment
could arguably be said to confer a federal character much the way
complete preemption does. In both cases, federal law has in some
sense extinguished the possibility of a state-court cause of
action.11 See Sullivan, 813 F.2d at 1376.
of that judgment is to be determined by the application
of the principles of res adjudicata.... The rule,
therefore, has become generally established that ...
another action for the same cause in another
jurisdiction is not precluded." Kline v. Burke Const.
Co., 260 U.S. 226, 228, 43 S.Ct. 79, 81, 67 L.Ed. 226
(1922).
See generally Bator et al., Hart and Wechsler's The Federal
Courts and the Federal System 1321 (1988).
11
We recognize that preclusion is a defense and therefore in
tension with the well-pleaded complaint rule. We also recognize
the institutional competence of the state courts over federal
law. These concerns, many of which are also implicated in the
context of preemption, justify construing Moitie narrowly, but
not abandoning it. We are simply without authority to empty
footnote two of all substantive content.
14
We also point out that the existence of a prior federal
judgment lifts the statutory bar against enjoining an ongoing state
proceeding. There is little practical distinction between, on the
one hand, removing and dismissing a precluded state suit and, on
the other hand, enjoining one. Under the relitigation exception to
the Anti-Injunction Act, the federal courts may enjoin state-court
proceedings to protect prior federal judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
Instead of removing, the defendants in Moitie might therefore have
requested an injunction from the federal court. Parsons Steel,
Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d
877 (1986). If issued, an injunction would have had the same
effect as removal: the end of state-court proceedings. Because
the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act has already
realigned federal-state relations in favor of the federal courts in
such an instance, any potential impact on federalism from removal
was not significant.
For all these reasons, we hold that Moitie should apply only
where a plaintiff files a state cause of action completely
precluded by a prior federal judgment on a question of federal
law.12
12
By limiting Moitie to those cases in which the plaintiff's
state-court action is barred by federal judgment preclusion, we
agree with the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Sullivan v. First
Affiliated Securities, Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 850, 108 S.Ct. 150, 98 L.Ed.2d 106 (1987). The
facts of Sullivan are almost identical to those here. In
Sullivan, the plaintiffs simultaneously filed securities law
actions for the same underlying conduct in both federal and state
courts. The defendants removed the state action even though the
state-court complaint alleged only violations of state securities
law. As here, the case came before the appellate court on
15
Here, there is no prior federal judgment and, consequently,
no perceptible federal character to the state claim. Carpenter
filed both actions simultaneously. As a result, there is no
judgment to protect and no federal preclusion law to apply. Unlike
the plaintiffs in Moitie, Carpenter is taking preclusion risks in
order to have her state law claim heard in its preferred forum;
she is not attempting to avoid the effect of a prior judgment. To
allow removal in a case such as this would effectively require
amending section 1441 at the expense of state autonomy. According
to the Supreme Court,
"The power reserved to the states under the Constitution to
provide for the determination of controversies in their
courts, may be restricted only by the action of Congress in
conformity to the Judiciary Articles of the Constitution.
"Due regard for the rightful independence of state
governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires
that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the
interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of the
plaintiff's motion to remand the removed state action to state
court. There was no prior federal judgment. In a well-reasoned
opinion, the Ninth Circuit construed Moitie "as limited to the
removal of state claims precluded by a federal judgment." Id. at
1376. The Ninth Circuit, of course, was the very court of
appeals that had affirmed the district court's removal in Moitie.
Our holding is not inconsistent with our earlier
decision in Powers v. South Central United Food & Commercial
Workers Unions and Employers Health & Welfare Trust, 719
F.2d 760 (5th Cir.1983). In Powers, this Court ruled
unremovable a state-court suit not completely preempted by
ERISA, relying on the "powerful doctrine" of the
well-pleaded complaint. Id. at 764 (quoting Franchise Tax
Board, 463 U.S. at 8, 103 S.Ct. at 2846). Although some
language in the opinion may implicitly suggest a broader
interpretation of Moitie than we accept here, see id. at
766, that language was clearly dicta and is therefore not
controlling. Our actual holding in that case, that
plaintiff's state-law claim, since not completely preempted
by federal law, did not arise under it, is wholly consistent
with our decision here.
16
precise limits which the statute has defined.' " Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107, 61 S.Ct. 868, 872,
85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) (quoting Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263,
268, 54 S.Ct. 700, 703, 78 L.Ed. 1248 (1934)).
These concerns rebut the School District's argument that the
existence of a parallel federal suit should render removable an
otherwise unremovable state claim. We simply cannot square the
School District's interpretation of section 1441 with the statutory
language, which keys the propriety of removal to the existence of
original jurisdiction in the district court, not to the presence of
a parallel suit there.
Nor can we square this interpretation with the policy of
section 1441. The removal statute, like the artful pleading
doctrine, is designed to afford defendants a federal forum for
their federal claims, not to prevent state judges from hearing a
state cause of action. The School District's interpretation turns
removal on its head, for by splitting the federal claim from the
state claim and pressing the former in federal district court,
Carpenter has afforded the School District the very protection
intended by a right to removal. See Friedenthal, Kane, & Miller,
Civil Procedure § 2.11 at 57 ("In a case involving a claim raising
an issue of federal law, removal equalizes the ability of both
parties to have a federal question litigated in its "natural'
forum.").
Notwithstanding the language of section 1441, the School
District has repeatedly argued that the costs resulting from
intercourt claim splitting should justify removal here. This
argument again misplaces the inquiry. Nowhere in the removal
17
statute can we locate an efficiency exception. The statute simply
does not address issues of judicial economy and litigation
management—matters beyond the scope of the statute's language and
policy. Furthermore, to complain of the costs arising out of
concurrent litigation in separate jurisdictions is to complain
generally of federalism, which suffers inefficiencies and
multiplicity for its own sake. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital
v. Mercury Const., 460 U.S. 1, 13, 103 S.Ct. 927, 936, 74 L.Ed.2d
765 (1983).
We observe in passing that the efficiency concerns are not
quite so extensive as the School District would have us believe.
For instance, the federal and state courts are equipped to mitigate
inefficiencies by coordinating discovery, as was actually done
here. Furthermore, although we recognize that concurrent state and
federal proceedings are generally tolerated, the federal court may,
in the exceptional case, dismiss its proceedings because of a
pending state action. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483
(1976); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Const. Corp.,
460 U.S. 1, 13-15, 103 S.Ct. 927, 936-37, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983).
Likewise, the Texas court, in its discretion, may abate its own
proceedings in deference to a parallel suit in another
jurisdiction. See Project Engineering USA v. Gator Hawk, 833
S.W.2d 716, 724 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ).
Finally, once either suit comes to judgment, the other may be
barred by res judicata. Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226,
18
228, 43 S.Ct. 79, 81, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); see, e.g., Hogue v.
Royse City, Texas, 939 F.2d 1249, 1256 (5th Cir.1991) (holding
under Texas law that, where state and federal suits were filed
separately and simultaneously in state and federal courts, a prior
state court judgment precluded the federal claim).13 If the federal
action concludes first, the defendant could raise the defense of
claim preclusion in state court or, as mentioned earlier, ask the
district court to enjoin prosecution of the state-court proceedings
under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. 28
U.S.C. § 2283 (allowing a federal court to enjoin an ongoing
state-court proceeding "where necessary ... to protect or
effectuate its judgments"); see Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First
Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986)
(allowing the injunction where the state court has itself not yet
ruled on the res judicata issue). In sum, as the Ninth Circuit
recognized in Sullivan, there are means available to "federal and
state courts ... [to] coordinate parallel state and federal
litigation without manipulating the removal statute to promote
policies beyond its scope." Sullivan, 813 F.2d at 1377.
Conclusion
Because there is no federal character to Carpenter's state
suit, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
13
In Hogue, we recognized the risks taken by a plaintiff who
simultaneously files suits for the same cause in both state and
federal courts: "Hogue took a calculated risk in filing separate
suits in what well may have been an attempt to hedge his bets on
which forum would be more favorable. Hogue lost that gamble, and
cannot now be heard to complain that he has not had his day in
court." Hogue, 939 F.2d at 1255-56.
19
it. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of
Carpenter's motion to remand, and we remand the case for further
action consistent with this opinion.14
REVERSED and REMANDED.
14
Carpenter has made a request for costs and attorneys' fees
pursuant to section 1447(c). The decision whether to allow the
recovery of costs is committed to the discretion of the district
court upon its order to remand the case to state court. Id.
Because the district court has evidently not yet addressed this
issue, we prefer to leave it for consideration by the district
court in the first instance on remand. See Miranti v. Lee, 3
F.3d 925, 928-29 (5th Cir.1993) (addressing the standards to be
applied in determining whether to award costs and attorneys' fees
under section 1447(c)).
20