IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SOUTH TEXAS ELECTRIC § 

COOPERATIVE, INC.

Plaintiff, §

vs. 

§ 

§ 

§ NO. 5:20-cv-00123

§

CG POWER SYSTEMS CANADA, INC., §

PTI MANITOBA, INC., PTI HOLDINGS §

CORP., PARTNER TECHNOLOGIES, § 

INC. § 

Defendants. § 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, DEFENDANTS PARTNER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED1

AND PTI MANITOBA INC.2 (collectively, “PTI”) and file this Notice of Removal, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, removing the above-captioned case to the United States District 

Court of the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division: 

I. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

1. On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff South Texas Electric Cooperative (“Plaintiff”),

commenced an action in the 81st Judicial District of Karnes County, Texas by filing Plaintiffs’ 

Original Petition and Requests for Disclosures captioned “Cause No. 19-11-00304, South Texas 

Electric Cooperative, Inc v. CG Power Systems Canada, Inc., PTI Manitoba, Inc., PTI Holdings 

Corp., and Partner Technologies, Inc.” (“Petition”). Plaintiff alleges that it contracted with CoDefendant CG Power Systems Canada Inc. (“CG Power”), for CG Power to provide three 

1 This entity was abbreviated in the pleading as Partner Technologies, Inc. Partner Technologies Incorporated and 

Co-Defendant PTI Manitoba Inc. were amalgamated into PTI Transformers Inc. 2 PTI Manitoba Inc. does not bear a comma between “Manitoba” and “Inc.” 

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 1 of 8
2

transformers, one of which failed within a five year minimum guarantee period. Plaintiff also 

alleges that PTI Manitoba, Inc., PTI Holdings Corp., and Partner Technologies, Inc. acquired CG 

Power. 

2. The state court action is one over which this Court has original jurisdiction under 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and may be removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), in that it is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and diversity of citizenship exists 

between the properly joined parties, which is apparent from the Petition, which names only 

Canadian entities as defendants.

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL

3. Upon filing this Notice of Removal of the cause, PTI gave written notice of the 

filing to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel as required by law. A copy of this Notice is also 

being filed with the clerk of the Court in Karnes County, Texas where this cause was originally 

filed. A copy of all processes, pleadings, and orders are included with this notice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b).

4. Removal is timely as PTI Manitoba Inc., the first defendant to be served, received 

the Petition and summons on January 9, 2020, which is less than 30 days before the filing of this 

Notice of Removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

5. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), an index of all documents filed with this 

Notice is attached as Exhibit 1. All executed process in the case, any pleadings, and any orders 

signed by the state judge in the state court action with Cause No. 19-11-00304 are attached as 

Exhibit 2; a copy of the docket in the state court action with 19-11-00304 is attached to this 

Notice as Exhibit 3; and a list of all counsel of record, including addresses, telephone numbers, 

and parties represented in the state court case is attached as Exhibit 4.

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 8
3

6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), PTI will file a Notice of Filing of Removal with 

the state court.

7. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, undersigned counsel certifies that 

he has read this Notice of Removal, that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, 

formed after a reasonable inquiry, it is well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or 

good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not 

interposed for any improper purpose.

8. All properly joined and served Defendants join this pleading and/or consent to the 

removal of this action. See Notice of Consent to Removal, infra at page 6. Consent from PTI 

Holdings Corp. is not necessary because it has not yet been properly served, but that entity 

consents to removal as well. See Notice of Consent to Removal, infra at page 7; see also Getty 

Oil Corp., Div. of Texaco, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254, 1262-63 (5th Cir. 1988) 

(“[A]ll defendants who are properly joined and served must join the removal petition[]”) 

(emphasis added); see also KLN Steel Prods. Co. v. CNA Ins. Cos., No. SA-06-CA-0709-XR, 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80879, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2006) (“All properly joined defendants 

must join in the removal or the petition is defective. . . . Joinder is not required of defendants 

who have not been served at the time the notice of removal is filed[]”); Milstead Supply Co. v. 

Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F. Supp. 569, 573 (W.D. Tex. 1992) (“[T]his Court holds joinder in or consent 

to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants: (1) who have been 

served; and (2) whom the remaining defendant actually knew or should have known had been 

served[]”).

III. VENUE

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) because this district and division 

embrace the county where the removed action was pending at the time of removal.

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 3 of 8
4

IV. PARTIES

10. According to the Petition, Plaintiff is a Texas corporation doing business in the 

state of Texas. 

11. The Petition also alleges that all defendants are foreign corporations located in 

Canada.

12. Defendant PTI Manitoba, Inc. was a Canadian corporation with its principal place 

of business in Canada, and was amalgamated into PTI Transformers Inc., which is also a 

Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Canada. PTI Manitoba, Inc. was 

served with the citation and petition pursuant to article 5 of the Hague Convention, via a Request 

for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents, which was directed to the Manitoba 

Department of Justice, and then service was accepted on behalf of this entity by attorney Jody 

Langhan on January 9, 2020. 

13. Subsequently, Defendant Partner Technologies Incorporated was served at 1155 

Park Street, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4N 4Y8. Partner Technologies Incorporated does 

not contest the method of service. Partner Technologies Incorporated was a Canadian 

corporation with its principal place of business in Canada, and was amalgamated into PTI 

Transformers Inc., which is also a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in 

Canada. 

14. The pleading alleges that Defendant PTI Holdings Corp., which has not yet been 

properly served, is a Canadian corporation.

15. Defendant CG Power is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of 

business in Canada. Upon information and belief, an individual listed as a director of CG Power 

was served at his home, and CG Power does not contest that it has been served with the Petition.

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 4 of 8
5

V. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS

16. Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a contract with CG Power to purchase three 

transformers, and that the contract guaranteed the transformer for a five-year period, during 

which STEC could reject the transformer for certain reasons. Plaintiff alleges that it discovered 

one of the three transformers had failed and sustained material damage and thus notified

Defendants it was rejecting the transformer, demanding Defendants repair or replace the 

transformer. Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not do so. Plaintiff has alleged causes of action for 

strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of contract, and breach of the 

implied warranty of merchantability, seeking $1,934,412.79 in damages in this lawsuit, plus 

interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. 

VI. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

17. The amount in controversy, as alleged in the pleading, exceeds $1.9 million. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants PTI MANITOBA, INC. and 

PARTNER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED pray that upon final hearing hereof, 

Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of this suit and that Defendants go hence without delay, and for 

such other and further relief, both general and special, legal and equitable, to which they may be 

justly entitled.

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 5 of 8

Notice of Consent to Removal (Cont’d)

My name is _________________________. I am _____________ at Defendant CG Power 

Systems, Inc. and have the authority to consent to removal on its behalf. I certify that I have 

reviewed the above pleading and consent to the removal of this lawsuit. 

Signed: ___________________ Dated: __________________ 

James Commodore

Authorized Signatory

2/3/2020

7

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 7 of 8
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 3rd day of February, 2020, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel of record, pursuant to the Texas Rules 

of Civil Procedure, by email, electronic e-service, fax or certified mail, as follows: 

Hobart M, Hind, Jr.

Butler Wiehmuller Katz Craig, LLP

18383 Preston Road, Suite 400

Dallas, Texas 75252

__Greg C. Noschese__________________

Greg C. Noschese

Case 5:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 02/03/20 Page 8 of 8