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.

Mire v. Disa Global Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

June 11, 2018

GERALD JAMES MIRE, III, ET AL.
v.
DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

         NOTICE

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition for Damages (R. Doc. 4) filed on February 15, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 26).

         Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (R. Doc. 17) filed on March 11, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 40).

         The Court considers the foregoing motions together because they concern the same related issue of whether remand of this action is warranted.

         I. Background

         On or about December 15, 2017, Gerald James Mire, III and Hallie White Mire (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action in the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge, Parish, naming as defendants DISA Global Solutions Inc. (“DISA”), Psychemedics Corporation (“Psychemedics”), Randy B. Barnett, D.O. (“Dr. Barnett”), and Motiva Company (“Motiva”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1-1, “Petition”).

         Plaintiffs allege that while Mr. Mire was employed as an electrician by ISC Constructors, LLC (“ISC”) he worked at various Motiva plants. (Petition ¶ 3). On or about December 1, 2016, Mr. Mire subjected himself to a random drug screening involving the collection of a hair sample by DISA that was sent to Psychemedics for laboratory services and/or chemical analysis. (Petition ¶¶ 5-7). Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Barnett was designated by DISA as the Medical Review Officer (“MRO”) to review the drug test results. (Petition ¶ 15). Mr. Mire's employment was terminated when the drug screening returned positive for cocaine. (Petition ¶ 9).

         Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are responsible “for the unlawful termination and dismissal of Mr. Mire from his employment as follows, which includes: violation of his civil rights, invasion of privacy, intentional interference with Mr. Mire's employment, and violation of state and federal laws, including but not limited to the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, HIPAA, the NIDA guidelines, the DOT regulations, the PHMSA regulations, the ADA, the Louisiana Human Rights Act, and/or the Louisiana Drug Testing statutes.” (Petition ¶ 14(b)). Plaintiffs specifically allege that each defendant breached its duty of care by committing certain acts or omissions required by HIPAA, the DOT regulations, PHMSA regulations. (Petition ¶ 18). Plaintiffs seek damages exceeding $150, 000, as well as removal of Mr. Mire's drug test results from his employment files. (Petition ¶¶ 21-22).

         On February 8, 2018, Psychemedics removed the action, asserting that this Court has both federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1). In support of federal question jurisdiction, Psychemedics asserts that Plaintiffs allege “violations of federal laws” and that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (R. Doc. 2-3). In support of diversity jurisdiction, Psychemedics asserts that there is complete diversity between the parties because Plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana, Psychemedics is a citizen of Massachusetts and Delaware, DISA is a citizen of Texas and Delaware, Dr. Barnett is a citizen of Pennsylvania, and Motiva is a citizen of Delaware and Texas. (R. Doc. 1 at 3-4). Psychemedics further asserts that it is facially apparent that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied in light of Plaintiffs' allegations. (R. Doc. 1 at 3-4).

         On February 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition for Damages (R. Doc. 4), which seeks leave to amend the Petition under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to name ISC as an additional defendant. In the proposed pleading, Plaintiffs ...


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.