DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERMAINE MARTIN, §

§

§

PLAINTIFF, § CIVIL ACTION NO.

§

v. § 3:22-cv-2158

§

§

MCGEE COMPANY, §

§

DEFENDANT. §

DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:

COMES NOW Defendant McGee Company, who hereby removes to this Court the civil 

action filed in the County Court at Law No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas, styled Jermaine Martin v. 

McGee Company, Cause No. CC-22-04216-D, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1441(a). 

Defendant McGee Company herein shows that all prerequisites for removal are satisfied, as 

follows:

I. INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANT FACTS

1. On or about August 3, 2022, Plaintiff Jermaine Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed “Plaintiff’s 

Original Petition” in the County Court at Law No.4 in Dallas County, Texas, styled as noted above. 

(See Exhibit A-2).

2. Plaintiff alleges in the state court proceeding he filed a “Charge of Discrimination with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Charge was dual filed with the Texas 

Workforce Commission . . .”. (Exhibit A-2, ¶ 25). 

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1
DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 2

3. Plaintiff’s Original Petition also asserts causes of action under Title VII for alleged sex 

discrimination/sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and discharge. (Exhibit A-2, ¶¶ 50-66)

4. Defendant McGee Company was served on August 30, 2022. (See Exhibit A-3). Defendant 

McGee Company is represented by the undersigned counsel. 

5. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of his employment with Defendant McGee Company.

6. On September 27, 2022, Defendants filed its Special Exceptions, Plea to the Jurisdiction, 

Original Answer, and Affirmative Defenses. (See Exhibit A-4).

II. CONSENT TO REMOVAL

7. Defendant McGee Company represented by the undersigned counsel consents to removal 

of this case from the state court proceeding to this Federal Court, evidenced by counsel’s signature 

below and the declaration of Chris Tranchetti. (See Exhibit B) Counsel has been authorized by 

Defendant McGee Company to represent to the Court on its behalf that it consents to the removal.

III. DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

8. Defendant does not admit, and will contest, if necessary and at the appropriate time, the 

various allegations in Plaintiff’s Original Petition, as noted in Defendant’s Special Exceptions, 

Plea to the Jurisdiction, Original Answer, and Affirmative Defenses.

VI. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

A. There is Federal-Question Jurisdiction

9. There is federal question jurisdiction under Plaintiff’s causes of action. Federal district 

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions 

arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because 

the Plaintiff is the master of his complaint, whether Plaintiff’s cause of action presents a federal 

question “depends on the allegations of the [Plaintiff’s] well-pleaded complaint.” Davoodi v. 

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 3

Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Medina v. Ramsey Steel Co., 

238 F.3d 674, 680 (5th Cir. 2001)).

10. Removal is proper pursuant under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) because Plaintiff’s suit involves 

issues under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §1331. Plaintiff refers to his Charge of Discrimination

(“Charge”), which alleges harassment/hostile work environment. (Exhibit D-1). Plaintiff’s Charge 

was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id. Plaintiff’s Charge 

alleged race, sex, and sexual orientation discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended. Id. The EEOC was the only administrative agency to investigate 

Plaintiff’s allegations. On July 13, 2022, the EEOC issued its Dismissal and Notice of Rights (also 

known as a Right to Sue Letter). (Exhibit D-2).

11. Furthermore, a close review of Plaintiff’s Original Petition demonstrates he plead facts that 

give rise to federal jurisdiction. Importantly, Plaintiff invoked federal jurisdiction when he 

explicitly brought four discete causes of action under Title VII. See W.H. Avitts v. Amoco Prod. 

Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Subject matter jurisdiction can be created only by pleading 

a cause of action within the district court’s original jurisdiction . . .”); see Alim v. KBR, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 3;11-CV-1746-N, 2012 WL 12857421, at * (N.D. Tex. March 15, 2022) (stating a 

plaintiff’s complaint must ‘affirmatively reveal on its face’ such a cause of action in order to trigger 

the thirty-day removal period); see e.g., Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149,

152 (1908) (standing for the proposition that for federal question jurisdiction to exist, a plaintiff’s 

cause of action, as pleaded, must arise under federal law). Consequently, Plaintiff’s lawsuit being 

filed in state court is inappropriate. Thus, Plaintiff’s lawsuit at this point involves federal questions 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (Federal-Question Jurisdiction). 

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 4

12. This Court has Federal-Question Jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 

and 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) because this action involves claims arising under the laws of the United 

States. See Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691 (2003).

13. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any 

state law claims pled in the Original Petition.

B. Defendant McGee Company Has Met the Requirements for Removal

14. Defendant McGee Company’s Removal is timely. As noted above, Defendant McGee 

Company was served on August 30, 2022. Defendant McGee Company timely filed this Notice 

of Removal (“Notice”) within 30 days of the date of service of the petition in the referenced state 

court proceeding as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Defendant McGee Company filed this 

Notice subject to and without waiving any defenses or objections to Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

that are allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law.

15. Venue is proper in this Court because Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in the County 

Court at Law No. 4 in Dallas County, Texas. The United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Texas, Dallas, Division, is the federal judicial district embracing the state court where 

Plaintiff filed his Original Petition. Therefore, venue is proper in this federal district court under 

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

16. All pleadings, process, orders, and other filings in the state court action are attached to this 

notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). (See Exhibit A, A-1-A-4) Defendant McGee Company 

has complied with the Northern District of Texas Local Rule 81 for removal by providing the 

requisite attachments.

17. Defendant McGee Company will file its written notice of removal with the Clerk of Court 

of the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). A 

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 5

copy of the written notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Undersigned counsel certifies that a 

copy of this Notice and the Notice of Removal to state court are being properly served upon 

Plaintiff by mailing a copy of said pleadings to his counsel of record, Matthew R. Scott, Scott Law 

Firm PLLC, Founders Square, 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550, Dallas, Texas 75202. 

18. This Notice of Removal is filed subject to and with full reservation of rights, including 

but not limited to defenses and objections to venue, improper service of process and personal 

jurisdiction. No admission of fact, law or liability is intended by this Notice or Removal, and all 

defenses, motions and pleas are expressly reserved.

V. JURY DEMAND

19. Plaintiff has made a jury demand in the state court action.

VI. CONCLUSION

20. WHEREFORE, to the extent a number of Plaintiff’s alleged claims are brought pursuant 

to Title VII invoking federal question jurisdiction, Defendant McGee respectfully requests the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, accept this Notice 

of Removal and that it assumes jurisdiction of this cause and issue all further orders and processes 

as may be necessary to bring all proceedings before this Court. 

Respectfully submitted,

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP

By: /s/ Angella H. Myers

Angella H. Myers

Texas Bar No. 24027229

angella.myers@kdvlaw.com

Sharon S. Gilmore

Texas Bar No. 24045943

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
DEFENDANT MCGEE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL P A G E | 6

sharon.gilmore@kdvlaw.com

14643 Dallas Parkway, Suite 550

Dallas, Texas 75254

Telephone: (972) 781-2400

Facsimile: (972) 781-2401

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

MCGEE COMPANY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certified that a true and correct copy of this document was served upon 

all counsel via [ ] United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, [ ] United States regular 

mail, [ ] facsimile, [ ] hand delivery, [X] Notice of Electronic Court Filing on the 28th day of 

September, 2022.

/s/ Angella H. Myers

Angella H. Myers

Case 3:22-cv-02158-K Document 1 Filed 09/28/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6