Tran v. Strategic Dental Executives, LLC et al DO NOT DOCKET. Case remanded to 56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
TRI T. TRAN,
Plaintiff.
V.
STRATEGIC DENTAL
EXECUTIVES, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-cv-00377
OPINION AND ORDER
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). I am required to “presume that a suit lies outside
this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests
on the party seeking the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912,
916 (5th Cir. 2001).
The Fifth Circuit has long held that federal courts “have the responsibility to
consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte if it is not raised by
the parties and to dismiss any action if such jurisdiction is lacking.” Giannakos v.
M/V Bravo Trader, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1985). Even more pertinent, 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c), applicable to actions removed from state court, provides: “If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Parties “may neither consent to
nor waive federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Simon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193
F.3d 848, 850 (5th Cir. 1999).
On November 19, 2025, 	Defendant 	Strategic 	Dental 	Executives, 	LLC
removed this case from the 56th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Dkt. 1. Plaintiff Tri Tran does not
assert any federal claims in his state court petition. Rather, Tran asserts two claims
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00377 Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
that arise only under Texas state law: (1) a Texas common law claim for wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy, and (2) a breach of contract claim. See Dkt.
1-1 at 8–11. Despite Tran’s assertion of only Texas state law claims, Strategic Dental
argues that “resolution of [Tran’s wrongful termination claim] depends upon
resolution of a substantial question of federal law—namely, whether Defendants’
actions violated the Occupation[al] Health and Safety Act” (“OSHA”). Dkt. 1 at 4–
5. Despite acknowledging that OSHA “does not provide a private cause of action,”
Strategic Dental insists that “the crux of [Tran]’s primary claim, as plead, is for
retaliation under Section 11(c) of [OSHA].” Id. at 5. Courts across the country have
uniformly rejected this argument.
For example, the Sixth Circuit has held that “a state-law employment action
for wrongful termination in violation of federal public policy does not present a
substantial federal question over which federal courts may exercise ‘arising under’
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d
544, 553 (6th Cir. 2006). Every court that I have found to address this exact issue
has remanded the case to state court. 1
1 See, e.g., Glanton v. Harrah’s Ent., Inc., No. 07-15425, 297 F. App’x 685, 687 (9th Cir.
2008) (vacating district court’s decision and remanding with instructions to remand case
to state court after holding that plaintiff’s state law constructive discharge claim did not
raise a substantial federal question because (1) the interpretation of federal law, including
OSHA was not an essential element of plaintiff’s claim; (2) OSHA was not the sole means
of establishing a violation of state public policy; (3) there is no substantial federal interest
because the action was not brought to enforce OSHA regulations; and (4) OSHA does not
provide a private cause of action); Stone v. Bob Evans Rests., LLC, No. 8:24-cv-2631,
2024 WL 4956711, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2024) (“To the extent that Defendant
contends Plaintiff’s state law claims depend on the resolution of a federal issue because
they will require a determination of whether Defendant has violated OSHA, the Court
finds that the fact that a claim requires resolution of federal law does not make the issue
substantial and is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction upon the Court.”
(quotation omitted)); Nemeroff v. Giordano’s Garden Groceries, LLC, No. CV 22-4291,
2023 WL 1767764, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2023) (“Whether OSHA creates a public policy
mandate in the state of Pennsylvania that is applicable to Giordano’s [wrongful
termination claim] is not a question that requires interpreting federal law. Instead, it
requires a court to determine how much a federal statute or regulation affects the
development of, or has been incorporated into, Pennsylvania common law, namely the
common law public policy cause of action for wrongful termination. . . . This is a question
Case 3:25-cv-00377 Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
It is my responsibility to raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction as
soon as it becomes apparent. For the reasons stated above, I do not think that there
is a substantial federal question presented in this case, and therefore, this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. If Strategic Dental disagrees, then it may file a
brief explaining why this case should not be remanded to state court by Thursday,
December 11, 2025. If Strategic Dental files such a brief, Tran may file a response
by Thursday, December 18, 2025. Alternatively, the parties are welcome to file an
agreed motion to remand.
SIGNED this 	day of November 2025.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
of Pennsylvania common law.” (cleaned up)); Bradley v. Fountain Bleu Health & Rehab.
Ctr., Inc., No. 22-cv-11565, 2022 WL 5241841, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 2022) (remanding
to state court because “even though Plaintiffs’ [state law] Wrongful Discharge Claim rests,
in part, on their allegation that they were fired for exercising rights conferred upon them
by . . . OSHA, the claim does not necessarily depend upon resolution of a substantial
federal question”); Meyer v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1265 (S.D.
Fla. 2012) (remanding to state court after holding that Plaintiff’s state law whistleblower
claim did not raise a substantial federal question “because it does not concern a pure issue
of federal law, it does not involve any federal actors, and the underlying determination of
whether any violation occurred is fact-bound and situation-specific”); McKinney v. Alcoa,
Inc., No. CV08-08355SJOVBKX, 2009 WL 305061, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009)
(“[F]ederal 	OSHA 	is 	not 	a 	necessary 	element 	of 	either 	of 	McKinney’s 	wrongful
termination claims because California state law independently espouses the same public
policy established in federal OSHA.” (quotation omitted)).
Case 3:25-cv-00377 Document 6 Filed 11/21/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3