Stephens v. Delgado et al Case Remanded to the Chief Clerk of Harris County 80th Judicial Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
B RITTANY M. STEPHENS, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-CV-04930
§
G RACE D ELGADO, ET AL., 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 9, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a third amended
complaint, which Plaintiff did.1 ECF 50; ECF 54. The Third Amended Complaint
omits the federal claims Plaintiff previously alleged. 	Compare ECF 1-1 at 11
(alleging violations of various federal statutes), ECF 17 (alleging constitutional
claims), and ECF 31 (alleging violations of the Violence Against Women Act), with
ECF 54. Therefore, the Court must redetermine its jurisdiction and consider remand
sua sponte. 	Judd v. Texakoma Fin., Inc., No. CIV.A.3:96-CV-2604-P, 1996 WL
734940, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1996) (explaining that the Court can consider
subject matter jurisdiction and remand sua sponte) (citing Giannakos v. M/V Bravo
Trader, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1985)).
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 49.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04930 Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 	The most common forms of subject
matter jurisdiction 	are 	federal-question 	and 	diversity 	jurisdiction, 	along 	with
supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367. Courts determine subject
matter jurisdiction according to the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that
federal question jurisdiction is appropriate where a plaintiff’s complaint contains an
issue of federal law on its face. Aaron v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, Pa.,
876 F.2d 1157, 1160–61 (5th Cir. 1989). Usually, the complaint will plead a cause
of action created by federal law. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013).
An amended complaint legally nullifies prior complaints unless it specifically
incorporates the earlier pleadings. 	New Orleans Ass'n of Cemetery Tour Guides &
Companies v. New Orleans Archdiocesan Cemeteries, 56 F.4th 1026, 1033 (5th Cir.
2023). 	“When a plaintiff amends her complaint following her suit's removal, a
federal court's jurisdiction depends on what the new complaint says.” Royal Canin
U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 30 (2025). “If . . . plaintiff eliminate[d]
the federal-law claims that enabled removal, leaving only state-law claims behind,
the court’s power to decide the dispute dissolves” because without federal-question
jurisdiction the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id.
Defendants removed this case from Texas state court alleging federal question
and supplemental jurisdiction. ECF 1 at 2. Although the original petition filed in
Case 4:25-cv-04930 Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
state court alleged violations of federal and state law (ECF 1-1 at 11), Plaintiff’s
Third Amended Complaint lacks federal claims. 	Instead, the Third Amended
Complaint brings claims for: Texas common law wrongful retention, conversion,
and promissory estoppel; breach of fiduciary duty relying on Texas state law
governing real estate brokers; Texas constitutional violations; and violation of the
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. 	ECF 54 at 3. 	Plaintiff’s
complaint does not raise an issue of federal law on its face. 	Therefore, the Court
must remand this case to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2
For the reasons stated abo\ve, the Court RECOMMENDS that the case be
REMANDED to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
2 The Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff and Defendants both allege all parties
are Texas citizens. ECF 1 at 1-2; ECF 54 at 1.
Case 4:25-cv-04930 Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on July 07, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-04930 Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4