IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JEREMY GODWIN, §

§

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. _______

§

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY,

§

§

§

Defendant. §

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Defendant” or “Union Pacific”) files this 

Notice of Removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and shows this Court as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Jeremy Godwin filed this action in the 352nd

Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 352-337194-22, styled as a breach of 

contract claim, which seeks back pay not awarded by an arbitration panel. (Exhibit A).

2. Plaintiff served Union Pacific with his Original Petition on October 3, 2022. (Id.; 

Exhibit A, p. 1).

3. Union Pacific files this Notice of Removal within thirty (30) days of service of 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition.

4. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Notice, Union Pacific provided written 

notice of this removal to the clerk of the 352nd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. 

II. VENUE

5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the state court 

where the suit was filed is located in this district. 

Case 4:22-cv-00959-O Document 1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
2

III. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL – DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

6. Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity jurisdiction 

because: (1) The actual amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as admitted by Plaintiff in his 

state court petition (Exhibit A, p. 5, ¶1), and (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship between 

the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7. Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Texas. (Exhibit A, p. 5, ¶ 2).

8. Defendant is a publicly-traded Utah corporation, organized under the laws of the 

State of Utah, with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. 

9. Accordingly, complete diversity jurisdiction exists and removal is proper. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1332; Guijarro v. Enter. Holdings, Inc., 39 F.4th 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2022) (“Federal courts 

have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 

and the parties are citizens of different states.”)

IV. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL – FEDERAL QUESTION

10. Defendant may also properly remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1441(a) 

because Plaintiff’s complaint seeks review of an arbitration decision issued pursuant to the 

Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (“RLA”). 

11. The RLA created the National Railroad Adjustment Board (“NRAB”) and assigned 

it exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving the interpretation and application of collective 

bargaining agreements. 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i). The RLA allows railroads and rail labor 

organizations to establish alternative arbitration panels, known as Public Law Boards or Special 

Boards of Adjustment, with coordinate jurisdiction over such disputes. 45 U.S.C. § 153 Second.

Case 4:22-cv-00959-O Document 1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
3

12. The RLA assigns federal district courts with jurisdiction over petitions for review 

of arbitration awards issued by the NRAB or a Public Law Board. 45 U.S.C. §§ 153 First (q) and 

Second. 

13. Plaintiff’s complaint in this action alleges that his union appealed his dismissal by 

Union Pacific to Public Law Board 2105 (“PLB 2105”) and that PLB 2105 issued a decision in 

which it held “that the charges against Plaintiff should be removed and that Plaintiff be reinstated 

without backpay after his fulfillment of certain conditions.” (Exhibit A, p. 6, ¶ 11). Consistent 

with that decision, Plaintiff alleges that Union Pacific “reinstated Plaintiff but refused to pay 

Plaintiff for any lost time.” (Exhibit A, p. 7, ¶ 12). 

14. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks the backpay that PLB 2015 decided not to award him. 

Thus, on its face, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks review of the arbitration award issued by PLB 2105 

and therefore arises under Sections 3 First (q) and Second of the RLA. 45 U.S.C. §§ 153 First (q) 

and Second.

15. Pursuant to Sections 3 First (q) and Second of the RLA, this Court has jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s complaint seeking review of the award issued by PLB 2105, and therefore, 

Plaintiff’s complaint may be properly removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1441(a).

16. A separate and independent ground for removal based on federal question 

jurisdiction is that to the extent Plaintiff claims a breach of contract, the only applicable contract 

is the collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the RLA as identified in paragraph 

11 of Plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim necessarily arises under federal law, and 

therefore, is completely preempted by the RLA.

Case 4:22-cv-00959-O Document 1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
4

V. CONCLUSION

17. Removal is proper because diversity jurisdiction exists and a federal question that 

could have been brought in federal court exists. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the 

court remove the suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nandini K. Sane

By: Nandini Kavuri Sane

Texas Bar No. 24086821

nsane@cozen.com

COZEN O’CONNOR, P.C.

1221 McKinney, Suite 2900

Houston, Texas 77010

Telephone: (832) 214-3962

Facsimile: (832) 214-3905

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

Kendall Kelly Hayden

Texas Bar No. 24046197

COZEN O’CONNOR, P.C.

1717 Main Street, Suite 3100

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 462-3000

(214) 462-3299 – Fax

khayden@cozen.com

LOCAL COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANT

Andrew J. Rolfes (pro hac vice forthcoming)

District of Columbia Bar # (444521)

Pennsylvania Bar # (78809)

Robert S. Hawkins (pro hac vice forthcoming)

New York Bar # (4517868)

Pennsylvania Bar # (39862)

COZEN O’CONNOR, P.C.

1650 Market Street, Suite 2800

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 665-2177

arolfes@cozen.com

rhawkins@cozen.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

Case 4:22-cv-00959-O Document 1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via ECF, 

email and/or First Class Mail on this 24th day of October 2022 to all parties and/or counsel of 

record as follows:

Ali Crocker Russell

State Bar No. 24098868

Crocker Russell & Associates

ali@cralawfirm.com

2401 Callender Road, Suite 103

Mansfield, Texas 76063

Tel: (817) 482-6570

Fax: (682) 232-1850

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Nandini K. Sane

Nandini K. Sane

60048527\2

Case 4:22-cv-00959-O Document 1 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5