Legal Opinion

Cedillo v. Valcar Enterprises & Darling Delaware Co.

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided October 1, 1991No. Civ. A. CA3-91-1645-DPublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FITZWATER, District Judge:

Plaintiff’s motion to remand presents the questions whether a workers’ compensation retaliation action made nonremovable by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) becomes removable when pendent to a federal question claim and whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the retaliation claim.

I

Plaintiff Agripin Cedillo (“Cedillo”) sued defendant Valcar Enterprises & Darling Delaware Company, Inc. (“Valcar”) on March 19, 1990 in Texas state court for violating the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 5221k, § 1.01 et seq. (West…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. FinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  4. The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  5. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
  2. Lott v. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
  3. Bookman v. ShubzdaDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1996
  4. Godfrey v. Perkin-Elmer Corp.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1992
  5. Brown v. Crop Hail Management, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1993

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API