Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Randy Walker, § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 1:25-cv-00469-ADA-SH § Performance Food Group, Inc., and § Mark Baltz, § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower. Judge Hightower issued her report on June 18, 2025, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Remand.

Plaintiff timely objected to the report on July 2, 2025, so the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (providing that when a party objects to the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days, “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made”).

The Court agrees with Judge Hightower’s conclusion that this Court has diversity jurisdiction, but the Court disagrees with her conclusion that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction. The Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction because Plaintiff removed his federal-law claims when he filed an amended complaint. Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 25–26 (2025) (holding that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal, the court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and must remand the action).

Nonetheless, the Court agrees with Judge Hightower that Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Remand should be denied because the Court has diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, except as to the conclusion that this Court has federal-question jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Remand is DENIED.

SIGNED on July 9, 2025.

Does ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE