1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

AZIZUL REHMAN

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DFW PHYSICIANS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, DELILAH BRANDT, 

and ADP, Inc. 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________

NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANTS DFW PHYSICIANS 

MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC AND DELILAH BRANDT

TO: Clerk of Court 

United States District Court 

For the Eastern District of Texas - Sherman Division 

United States Courthouse 

7940 Preston Road Room 101 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Clerk of the 471st Judicial District Court 

Of Collin County, Texas 

Russell A. Steindam Courts Building 

2100 Bloomdale Rd. 

McKinney, Texas 75071 

Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq. 

Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq. 

THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75025 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants DFW Medical Associates, LLC and 

Delilah Brandt (“Removing Defendants”) remove this civil action under 28 U.S.C. 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
2 

§§ 1331(a), 1367(a), 1441, and 1446. The specific grounds for removal are set forth 

below. 

INTRODUCTION 

1. On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff Azizul Rehman filed a petition in the 

471st Judicial District Court in Collin County, Texas. The case is styled Rehman v. 

DFW Physicians Medical Associates, LLC, et al., Cause No. 471-04262-2023 (the 

“State Action”). 

2. List of all parties (see Local Rule CV-81(c)(1)): 

 Plaintiff:

 Azizul Rehman 

 Defendants: 

 DFW Physicians Medical Associates, LLC (“DFWPMA”) 

 Delilah Brandt 

 ADP, Inc. 

3. Current status of removed case (see Local Rule CV-81(c)(1)): 

 Pending 

4. Neither of the Removing Defendants has been served with process. 

Upon information and belief, ADP, Inc. has not been served either—in fact, the 

State Action file obtained by the Removing Defendants does not reflect that a citation has been issued. Service of process is not a prerequisite to removal. Delgado v. 

Shell Oil Co., 231 F.3d 165, 177 (5th Cir. 2000). 

5. No answers have been filed in the State Action. 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
3 

6. As required by Local Rule CV-81(c), the Removing Defendants attach 

the following documents to this Notice of Removal: 

(1) A civil cover sheet (Exhibit 1). 

(2) A certified copy of the state court docket sheet; a copy of all pleadings that assert causes of action (e.g., complaints, amended complaints, supplemental complaints, petitions, counter-claims, crossactions, third party actions, interventions, etc.); all answers to 

such pleadings and a copy of all process and orders served upon 

the party removing the case to this court as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(a) (Exhibit 2). 

(3) A complete list of attorneys involved in the action being removed, 

including each attorney’s bar number, address, telephone number, 

and party or parties represented by that attorney (Exhibit 3). 

BASIS FOR REMOVAL 

7. The parties agree that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dr. Rehman asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

8. In addition, Dr. Rehman purports to assert state-law claims for breach 

of contract, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and apparently for breach of fiduciary duties. 

All of these state-law claims implicate Dr. Rehman’s rights under the 401(k) plan 

that he formerly had while employed by DFWPMA. To the extent that these statelaw claims implicate the 401(k) plan, they relate to an ERISA plan and are therefore preempted by ERISA, thus raising additional federal questions. See, e.g., 29 

U.S.C. § 1144(a). 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
4 

9. To the extent that these state-law claims are not preempted by ERISA, 

the Court has supplemental jurisdiction because they arise from the same allegations as the federal claims, and thus are so related to the federal claims that they 

form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

10. The same is true for Dr. Rehman’s claim under the Texas Commission 

on Human Rights Act. This claim relies on the same allegations as his federal Title 

VII claim. Thus it is so related to the Title VII claim that its forms part of the same 

case or controversy; again, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

11. Dr. Rehman does not dispute this. He admits in his state-court petition that his “religious discrimination claims . . . present[] a question of federal 

law.” Petition at 2 ¶ 7. 

VENUE, NOTICE, AND REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT 

12. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas and the Sherman Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because, under 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3), this District 

and Division embraces Collin County, Texas, the place where the removed action 

has been pending. 

13. Defendant will promptly file a Notice of Filing Notice of Removal with 

the 471st Judicial District Court in Collin County, Texas, and will serve a copy on 

Dr. Rehman’s counsel as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). 

14. Should Dr. Rehman seek to remand this case to state court, the Removing Defendants respectfully ask that they be permitted to brief and argue the 

issue of this removal before any remand order issues. In the event that the Court 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
5 

decides remand is proper, the Removing Defendants ask that the Court retain jurisdiction and, if the Court deems it appropriate, certify any remand order for interlocutory review by the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

JURY TRIAL 

15. Dr. Rehman demanded a jury trial in the State Action. See Petition at 

13 ¶ 117. 

CONCLUSION 

16. It is undisputed that this is a civil action that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It thus presents a matter over which 

this Court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It is also undisputed that 

Dr. Rehman’s state-law claims form part of the same case or controversy as his federal claims, so this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

17. The Removing Defendants therefore pray that the State Action be removed to, and retained in, this Court. 

DATED: 10 August 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Robert J. Carty, Jr. 

Robert J. Carty, Jr., Lead Attorney 

NICHOLS BRAR WEITZNER & THOMAS LLP 

Texas Bar No. 00788794 

2402 Dunlavy Street, Suite 2000 

Houston, Texas 77006 

Telephone: (713) 405-7715 

Email: rcarty@nicholsbrar.com 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
6 

Ryan M.T. Allen 

RYAN M.T. ALLEN AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC

Texas Bar No. 24040414 

290 S. Preston Road, Suite 380 

Prosper, Texas 75078 

Telephone: (214) 802-4465 

Email: ryan@rmta.law 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS DFW 

PHYSICIANS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, 

LLC AND DELILAH BRANDT 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served on all counsel of record, as listed below, via email and certified mail, return 

receipt requested, on 10 August 2023. 

Vincent J. Bhatti, Esq. 

vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com 

Ditty S. Bhatti, Esq. 

ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com 

THE BHATTI LAW FIRM, PLLC

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75025 

/s/ Robert J. Carty, Jr. 

Robert J. Carty, Jr. 

Case 4:23-cv-00717-SDJ Document 1 Filed 08/10/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7