Opinion
Civil Action No: SA-02-CV-107-EP
March 20, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND
On February 4, 2002, the defendants removed the above and numbered styled cause to federal court. Shortly thereafter, the defendants filed an amended answer adding several counterclaims. Since that time the plaintiff moved to remand this cause to state court, and alternatively, asked this Court to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After considering the plaintiffs motion and the defendants' response, the Court will deny the motion.
The defendants removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction. Although the plaintiff does not disagree that diversity jurisdiction exists, it argues that the Tax Injunction Act (the Act) precludes this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Act prohibits federal district courts from "enjoining, suspending or restraining the assessment, levy or collection" of any state tax when that state offers a plain, efficient and speedy remedy. 28 U.S.C. § 1341. The Act, however, does not bar federal court jurisdiction in this case because this suit was filed to collect a state tax, rather than to enjoin, suspend or restrain the collection of taxes. See La. Land Exploration Co. v. Pilot Petroleum Corp., 900 F.2d 816, 818 (5th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff seeks to set aside an agreement it entered into twelve years ago in an attempt to collect taxes. A suit to collect a tax is not brought to restrain state action and therefore does not fit the Act's description of suits barred from federal district court adjudication. See Jefferson County, Ala. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 433-34 (1999). Consequently, the Act does not bar this Court's jurisdiction. As a result, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs motion to remand (docket entry #3-1).
The Court also DENIES the plaintiffs motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims (docket entry #3-2). The plaintiffs claims, not the defendants' counterclaims, serve as the basis of this Court's jurisdiction. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the defendants' counterclaims because those claims are clearly related to the plaintiffs claims and are so related to the plaintiffs claims that they are part of the same controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
With these issues resolved, the Court instructs the parties to submit proposed scheduling deadlines by April 30, 2002. See Local Rules for the Western District CV-16. If the parties fail to recommend scheduling deadlines by that date, the Court will issue a scheduling order without recommendations from the parties.