IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

BRENDA SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 24-00796-CV-W-JAM ) GUADALUPE CENTERS, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever and Remand Count II of her Complaint and Suggestions in Support (Docs. 6, 7). Defendant did not file a response. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Brenda Smith filed suit against Defendant Guadalupe Centers, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, asserting a claim for wrongful discharge, retaliation, and discrimination under Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law,

(Count II), and other claims arising under state (MHRA) and federal laws (ADA, FMLA, ADEA, Title VII and § 1981). (Doc. 1-1) Defendant removed the case under

and 1446. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff filed the present motion, asking the Court to remand Count II because the Missouri Workers’ Compensation claim is not removable under

(c). (Doc. 6) II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Under

Must Be Severed and Remanded Under

(a), a defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if the action falls within the federal court’s jurisdiction. The defendant, as the party seeking removal, bears the burden of demonstrating federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.,

(8th Cir. 2010). If the federal court determines at any point that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is required to remand the case to state court.

Any uncertainties regarding the existence of federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand.

. A district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States, as well as supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so closely related to federal law claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

, 1367(a). Congress has identified certain claims as non-removable to federal court, including those arising under state workers’ compensation laws.

(c) (“A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.”). See Humphrey v. Sequentia, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 1995) (a § 287.780 claim arises under the state workers’ compensation laws). Courts addressing the remand of workers’ compensation discrimination claims have reached the same conclusion, holding that such claims are not removable. In Tuggar v. Kansas City Art Institute, the district court severed and remanded the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge and

discrimination claims arising under Missouri workers’ compensation laws, while retaining jurisdiction over the race discrimination and retaliation claims under

. No. 4:20 CV-00781-HFS,

, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 14, 2021). See also Carr v. Am. Bottling Co., No. 4:21-CV-325-SRW,

, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 3, 2021) (under

(c), as amended, district courts must sever and remand non- removable claims); Parks v. Barnes-Jewish Hosp., Case No. 4:20-CV-01818-MTS,

, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2021) (the court severed and remanded plaintiff’s retaliation claim while retaining jurisdiction over the Title VII claim); Campbell v. Anytime Labor- Kansas LLC, Case No. 16-00142-CV-W-GAF,

, at *4-5 (W.D. Mo. May 11, 2016) (remanding a workers’ compensation retaliation claim but retaining jurisdiction over MHRA claims under § 1367 as part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims); Hearring v. Just Us of Columbia, LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-04255-NKL,

, at *7 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 25, 2016) (remanding a workers’ compensation claim to state court

while retaining jurisdiction over FLSA claims). Count II, under the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act, must be severed and remanded to state court, while the remaining claims may proceed in federal court. B. Authority of This Court is Proper Although there is not consent from all parties currently, magistrate judges have the authority to remand claims that are nonremovable under

.

. See Harter v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 4:18-CV-1290-DDN,

, at *1-2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2018) (a magistrate judge has authority under

(b) to rule on a motion to remand, distinguishing between dispositive and non-dispositive orders, even absent consent from all parties); Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.,

(D. Minn. 1999) (motions to remand fall within a magistrate judge’s authority under § 636(b)(1)(A)). III. CONCLUSION Because remand of Count II is proper and within the authority of this Court, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 6) is granted, such that Count II is hereby SEVERED and REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, for further proceedings. The other claims (Counts I, III-VII) remain pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. /s/ Jill A. Morris JILL A. MORRIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE