United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
GERALD JAMES MIRE, III, ET AL.
DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report
has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District
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.
NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
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).
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (R.
Doc. 17) filed on March 11, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R.
Court considers the foregoing motions together because they
concern the same related issue of whether remand of this
action is warranted.
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
“Defendants”). (R. Doc. 1-1,
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).
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
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
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 ...