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.

Sobran, Inc. v. Garg

August 14, 2006

SOBRAN, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICE MARJU GARG, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Walter Herbert

ENTRY REMANDING CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, OHIO, FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; TERMINATION ENTRY

On September 13, 2002, Marju Garg ("Garg"), the Defendant herein, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Cincinnati, against SoBran Inc. ("SoBran"), and another entity. Therein, she set forth claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Garg v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:02cv654 (S.D.Ohio). At the request of the defendants in that lawsuit, Judge Susan Dlott ordered that Garg's claims be resolved by arbitration in accordance with an Arbitration Agreement she had executed when hired. See Doc. #28 in Case No. 1:02cv654.

After the matter had been arbitrated with a result in Garg's favor, SoBran brought this litigation in the Common Pleas Court for Greene County, Ohio. In its Complaint (Doc. #2), SoBran set forth a claim under § 2711.13 of the Ohio Revised Code, requesting that the arbitration award made in favor of Garg be vacated. Garg removed this matter, alleging that this Court can exercise federal question subject matter jurisdiction.*fn1 See Doc. #1. In particular, she alleged that this Court can exercise such jurisdiction in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and because she had asserted federal claims in the underlying litigation before Judge Dlott, which gave rise to the arbitration. Questioning whether it could exercise federal question, subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit, this Court entered an Order on August 8, 2006, directing the Defendant to show cause why this matter should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.*fn2 See Doc. #15. In response, Defendant has indicated that she is not opposed to having this litigation remanded, rather than arguing that this Court can exercise federal question, subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. #16.

Based upon the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in its Order of August 8, 2006 (Doc. #15), this Court concludes that it cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation and, therefore, remands it to the Common Pleas Court for Greene County, Ohio, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.").

The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

WALTER HERBERT RICE, JUDGE UNITED STATES ...


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.