Petition

'; ,l.
DAVID A. ESCAMILLA LITIGATION DIVISION

COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHERINE E. THOMASr
RANDY T. LEAVITT DIRECTOR
FIRST ASSISTANT
ELAINE A. CASAS
JAMES W. COLLINS
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FELIX TARANGO
314 W. 11TH, STREET .. ,('-, ,~. ANTHONY J. NELSON

GRANGER BLDG., SUITE. 12,h
AUSTIN TEXAS 7.Jn.O';f _ !,
C.\\i \""U LESLIE W. DIPPEL
. . \:} v:"-" V ~~~
,
~."! \ "',,,,.
COP
P. O:-BOX 174Jl ,\"b>' Q. ",JENNIFER KRABER
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767. 11.fJfJu • STEPHEN H, CAPELLE
(512) 854·9513
FAX, (512) 854-4808
~\yu~ _--I;::..."~. .; •..CO'':
' -
~S -c
".1"
-.... - rMEMBER
OF
OF THE
THE STATE
COLlEGE
BAR
e-)\".:7\;~-'" ~ ~
~'f
,\ S. ~,<.<.\\.1\
v' .• ·.c, \. .~,
<,.<-.<',-,\Z
\;of'.
C,\-'r}::;x~:Q,.\~\J\~ ..,<~,,-q c- August 27, 2008
Via H;~;~~
r;•.•~. \ ~\ ~"""f UV
o~'
t
.. AO SeA 643S$
William G. Pu icki
.'
Clerk of Co ,United States District Court
Western D' trict of Texas
200 Wes 8th Street
Austin, exas 78701
Cause.No. D-1-GN-08-002659; Heather Johnson v; Travis County

Texas a Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacity; In
the 200th }ll~icial District Court; Travis County, Texas
\~ .
Dear Mr. Putnicki:
Enclosed please find for filing in the above-referenced matter the original and one copy of .'~.
each of the following: .'
tI
1. Notice of Removal (with all.pleadings filed in State District Court attached); f

2. Civil Cover Sheet (form J~\44-); and .
3. Supplement to JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet.
Also enclosed please find a Travis County check in-the amount of $350.00 for the fees. "
associated with filing the above-referenced documents in this matter.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely; .
~~
Leslie W. Dippel -
Assistant County Attorney
LWD/mpc ...
'l
Enclosur7 .
, ominic Audino, with enclosures (via CMRRR # 70'04 07500002 0227 7319)
-, 1.' :
.e-r=,
Ii!>.JS
44 (Rev. 12/07)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provide,
by local rules of COUlt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk OfCOUlt for the purpose of irnuatm,
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) .
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Heather Johnson Travis County, Texas and Susan Spataro in

Her Individual and Official Capacity
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff ...;W:...:..;.i:..:.":.::ia:.:m..:..:..::s;.::o:..:.n.:..-
_ County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Travis
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
RECE\\}ED
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attomey's(FinnName,Address,andTelephoneNumber)
See Attachment 1 j\\.lG 2. '1
'2.008
.
Attomeys(lfKnown)
o§~,e-Attachment 1
A 0 8 CA 64 3 SS.· '. .
\ 'IR - \ C "EJ<'j>..S
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION R I. CITIZItNSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintift
. -r'{ C!5""~~~ity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
01 U.S. Government ?\J I PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff Citizen of This State ~ I l!!I I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4
of Business In This State
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place o o 5
Defendant of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
o 3 0 3 Foreign Nation o 6 0 6
IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an t'X't in One Box Onlv)

~J!;fjf~(i)NifM'C<i~ l";q@#itlhii{,~~"¥j:t\l+¥,~t0Rj£S"~~ih"'¥''''"'''·' ~'; §\\&EORFEn;URElP£1SA'fi.JlY.t1.'b.\''''liil~B1\NKR(J'e-l'~\it@;© ;%Y~TjJiER~S~~
o 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment
o 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust
o 130 Miller Act 0 3 I5 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking
o 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce
o 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability 0630 Liquor Laws it*~· '" ~ .. ": ,," ",' 0 460 Deportation
& Enforcementofludgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
o 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
o 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational 0 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit
Student Loa~s 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
(Excl. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud 0 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service
o 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 37 I Truth in Lending ~~'$$,' .' "'<"olW#- - , .. '~Ii!:* 0 850 Securities!Commodities!
of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (J395f1) Exchange
o 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge
o 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g» 12 USC 3410
o 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 ssm Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
o 196 Franchise Iniury & Disclosure Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts
_l!lBMRiE'A-:m:RR ilUIIR'Il.¥l\\'il%'&'tiO ~G:1\V1fJ!i'JR1GHlJlS.~wth'BRIS(i}NER'l!l}miliIONS~s 0 740 Railway Labor Act [L~EI)E'RXb"'T"~:s.IJ;l~_ 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act
0210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U,S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters
o 220 Foreclosure ~ 442 Employment Sentence 0 791 Ernpl. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act -
0230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing! Habeas Corpus: Security Act 0 871 IRS-Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information
o 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
o 245 Ton Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty ••• ;~·~tJ~;R$.,1Jl10l\Tj[1\%l:j!M\MiI 0 900Appeal of Fee Detenninatio
o 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights 0 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice
o 446 Amer. w!Disabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of
Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
o 440 Other Civil Rights Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to District

o I Original !gj 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from o 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 7 Judge from
Magistrate •
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened anoth,er district Litigation
s ecif Jud ment
C1!3t'(j ,'S~(p§ilf4~i(~)der which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSEOFACTION~~~~~--~~-----------------------------------------------------
Brief description of cause:
Violation ot the tst &14th Amendments ot the U,~, Constitution, I exas Whistle blower Act; & retaliation
VII. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UN{)ER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: gJ Yes 0 No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions);
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF.RECORD
~~.
• FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

--------- -------------- ----------- ----- ----------------
. - ------------~---.....-------'
ATIACHMENT 1-
• ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
9442 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78759
Attorney for Heather Johnson
De(endants' Attorneys:
Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel
Travis County Assistant County Attorneys
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 420
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone Number: (512) 854-9513
Fax Number: (512) 854-8408
Attorneys for Travis County and
Susan Spataro
Attachment 1
RECE·lVED INFORTHETHEUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUG 2 7 200 AUSTIN DIVISION
,_
CLE.R~'R~' 0'
WESTE
1ST CT COURT
T CT OF TEXAS Supplement to JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet
RK Cases Removed from State District Court
A 0 8 CA 6 4 3 SS
'.. .....•..
BY DEPUTY CLE
This form must be filed with the Clerk's Office no later than the first business day following
the filing of the Notice of Removal. Additional sheets may be used as necessary.
The attorney of record for the removing party MUST sign this form.
STATE COURT INFORMATION:
1. Please identify the court from which the case is being removed; the case number; and the complete
style of the case.
Cause No. D-1-GN-08-002659
Heather Johnson, § In the District Court

Plaintiff §
§
v. § 200th Judicial District
§
Travis County, Texas, and Susan §
Spataro, in her individual and Official §
Capacity,
2. Was jury demand made in State Court? Yes [Xj No []

If yes, by which party and on what date?
Heather Johnson, Plaintiff July 24, 2008

Party Name Date

1. List all plaintiffs,defendants, and intervenors still remaining in the case. Also, please list the
attorney(s) of record for each party named and include the attorney's firm name, correct mailing
address, telephone number, and fax number (including area codes).
Party Attorney of Record

Heather Johnson, Plaintiff Dominic Audino
One Arboretum Plaza
9442 N. Capital ofTexas Hwy., Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 251-5004 Voice
(512) 252-2850 Facsimile
Travis County and Anthony J. Nelson

Susan Spataro, Defendants Leslie W. Dippel
P.O.Box 1748
Assistant County Attorneys
Travis County Attorney's Office
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513 D
TXWD - Supplement to JS 44 (Rev. 10/2004)

2. List all parties that have not been served at the time of the removal, and the reason(s) for
non-service.
Travis County and Susan Spataro. Defendants have agreed to waive service of citation.
3. List all parties that have been non-suited, dismissed, or terminated, and the reason(s) for their
removal from the case.
None.
COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS, and/or THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS:

1. List separately each counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim still remaining in the case and
designate the nature of each such claim. For each counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim,
include all plaintiffs, defendants, and intervenors still remaining in the case. Also, please list the
None.
VERIFICATION:
August 27, 2007

Attorney for Removing Party Date
Travis County and Susan Spataro, Defendants

Party/Parties

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2008 AUG 27 PH 2: 10
AUSTIN DIVISION
CLERK US Dj~)Hnc' cousr
WES TERN DIS TRIC OF T£
HEATHER JOHNSON §
§ A-e~
CIVIL ACTION NO. _
V. §
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO §
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL §
CAPACITIES §
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Defendants Travis County and
Susan Spataro in her individual and official capacities, hereby give notice of removal of an
action filed against it in the 200th Judicial District of Travis County, Texas, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. In support of this removal,
Defendants offer the following:
Preliminary Matters
1. Plaintiff, Heather Johnson, filed a cause of action entitled Heather Johnson v.
Travis County and Susan Spataro in her Individual and Official Capacities; in the 200th Judicial
District Court of Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-I-GN-08-002659.
2. Defendants received Plaintiffs First Petition on July 31, 2008.
3. This Notice of Removal is timely filed in that it is filed within thirty (30) days
after Defendants received the initial pleading setting forth a claim for relief upon which this
action is based. 28 U.S.c. § 1446(b).

Nature of the Case
4. Plaintiff filed this cause of action alleging a violation of the first and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution and Texas Whistleblower Act after her
employment was terminated on June 4, 2008.
Grounds for Removal
5. Cause No. GN-08-002659 is a civil action over which this Court has original
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As a result, Cause No. GN-08-002659 is an action
Defendant may remove to this court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b), in that it
alleges claims which arise under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States,
specifically the First and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, under 42
U.S.c. § 1983. This Notice of Removal is filed within thirty (30) days of Defendants receipt of a
copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which the action is based. 28
u.S.c. § 1446(b).
6. Venue is proper in the Austin division of the Western District as a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
Proceedings Below
7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1446(a), Defendants file herewith copies of all process,
pleadings, and orders served upon Defendants in this case:
a. Travis County Docket Sheet;
b. Plaintiffs First Petition;
c. Notice of Removal to Federal Court.
8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal (exclusive of
the attachments) has been filed with the Clerk of the Travis County District Court.
Jury Demand
9. Plaintiff has demanded a jury in the state court action.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, respectfully pray that this
action be removed to this Court and that this Court accept jurisdiction of this case and place it on
the docket for further proceedings. Defendants further prays that upon final disposition, Plaintiff
take nothing by her claims and that Defendants be awarded such other relief as the Court deems
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID ESCAMILLA
County Attorney, Travis County
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513
Facsimile: (512) 854-4808
By: ~~
Anthony J. Nelson
State Bar No. 14885800
Leslie W. Dippel
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal was
served on all counsel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested on the 27th day of
August, 2008.
Via Certified Mail RJRJR#70040750000202277319

Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
Attorney for Plaintiff
~~
Leslie W. Dippel
Exhibit ·4_
TIME: 08:46: 16 AM
REGISTER OF ACTIONS
DATE: Aug 20, 2008
AMALIA RODRIGUEZ-MENDOZA
PAGE: 1
DISTRICT CLERK, TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS
0-1-GN-08-002659 JOHNSON VS TRAVIS COUNTY

PARTY: PL 1 JOHNSON HEATHER
COURT/JUDGE: 200 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATUS: PN PENDING
FILING DATE: 07-24-2008 CASE TYPE: WHI WHISTLEBLOWER
DATE CASE ENTERED: 07-24-2008
EVENT CATEGORY:
PERIOD: TO
DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT
07-24-2008 PL 1 ASM:GN CIVIL PETITION $237.00
07-24-2008 PL 1 ASM:CITATION ISSUE $8.00
07-24-2008 PL 1 ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
07-24-2008 NEW:ORIGINAL PETITION/APPL
07-24-2008 PL 1 PMT:GN CIVIL PETITION G 24947 $237.00

Received Of:
Memo:
07-24-2008 PL 1 PMT:CITATION ISSUE G 24947 $8.00

Received Of:
Memo:
7/24/08 New Suits
D·I-GN-08-002659
CAUSE NO.
. -""
:E~
tl/)
::::51'0 ~
HEATHER JOHNSON, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT ~ U
-~
0)(
0(1) .u
§ o _ CO
c::;:)
N
0
-c
.i::~ c::;:)
Plaintiff, § (;ic: C'-I
I:
'"
::E
§ .-
00
j
~ N
v. § 2bf) JUDICIAL DISTRICT jg U
C\.l
'"
::::s
.~
§ t-.~
c;>
.- e
-.
-l
-..,
-J
.;:;
0
a::
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS and SUSAN
SPATARO in her Individual and Official
§
§
"Ot-
<11-
:=0
a. •..E
.!l:!
c;
Capacity, Defendants § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

1.1...
OJ c(c(
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
HEATHER JOHNSON, Plaintiff, complains of the Travis County, Texas and Susan
Spataro in her Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants, and for cause of action shows
the Court and jury as follows:
I. DISCOVERY LEVEL
1. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that they seek monetary relief, within the jurisdictional
7f\ limits of this court, excluding costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees; therefore,
pursuant to Rule 190.4, of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, they intend to conduct
-
-
~ discovery under Level Two of this Rule. Plaintiff reserves the right to request a discovery
- control plan from the Court pursuant to Rule 190.4.
-
-
---
-
iiiiiiiiiiiij;
'11. PARTIES
---
-
!'!!!!!'!!
2. The Plaintiff, HEATHER JOHNSON, is an individual residing in Williamson County,
-
!!!!!!!'!!!!
iiiiiiiiiiiij;
-Rl
===U')
-0
Texas, (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and may be contacted through her undersigned legal
counsel of record.
-N
=(0
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiio
-0
===0
Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 1 of 7

7/24108 New Suits
3. Defendant Travis County, Texas is a local governmental entity within the state of
Texas and operating in and for Travis County, Texas. This entity may be served through its
administrative head, the County Auditor Susan Spataro at the following location: 314 West
11th St., Grainger Bldg., Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78701.
4. Defendant, Susan Spataro, ("Spataro") is an individual who is a citizen of Texas and
who resides in or around Travis County. At all times relevant to this suit, Spataro was
employed by and served as the Acting Executive Director of the Travis County Auditor's
Office. Ms. Spataro may be served at the following location: 314 West 11th St., Grainger
Bldg., Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78701.
III. JURISDICTION and VENUE
5. Pursuant to § 554.006(b) of the Texas Government Code, this suit is proper in the
district court of Travis County, Texas.
IV. JURISOICITIONAl PREREQUISITES
6. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable grievance procedures adopted by Defendant
and has timely filed this suit in accordance with Sections 554.005 and 554.006, Texas
Government Code.
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as Associate Auditor I for the Travis County
Auditor' Office in November of 2007. Plaintiff performed her job professionally and took her
duties very seriously. At various points in May of 2008, Plaintiff discovered abnormalities in
the accounting and auditing/contractual procedures by various employees of the Travis
County Auditor' Office made illegal by various state and federal regulations and laws.

7/24/08 New Suits
8. Plaintiff brought this to the attention of her managers and supervisors in May of
2008, as well as advising purchasing agents and asking Treasury employees of the
perceived incorrect accounting and auditing/contractual principles applied. These concerns
could have Significant financial implications for the taxpayers and bond owners of the
County, its vendors, and grantor's and grantee's. During this process, Defendant was
made aware of Plaintiffs good faith complaint. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this
petition to provide additional details relating to her allegations.
9. Plaintiff did not have a history of misconduct prior to this complaint and her
termination was not precipitated by adequate progressive discipline. Shortly after her
complaint, Plaintiff was harassed, threatened, pressured, written-up and reprimanded by
Defendant, by and through its agents and employees, after her complaints made in good
faith regarding work-related misconduct and potentially illegal conduct. Plaintiff was
terminated on June 4, 2008 for pretextual reasons.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I - WhistJeblower Retaliation
10. Plaintiff would show that the aforementioned conduct constitutes a willful and
blatant violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act, Chapter 554, Section 554.001 Tex. Gov't
Code, which prohibits a governmental entity from retaliating or otherwise discriminating
against a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law to an appropriate
enforcement authority.
11. Plaintiff's clearly established rights under the Texas Whistleblower Act were violated
by the Defendants when they took adverse employment actions against her by terminating
Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 3 of 7

7/24/08 New Suits
her employment in retaliation for her good faith reports of violations of law to an
appropriate law enforcement authority.
12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has and
will continue to suffer economic and emotional damages, embarrassment, humiliation, loss
of professional opportunities, as well as damage to her reputation, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, as well as attorney's fees and costs associated with filing this suit.
Count II - Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
13. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein.
14. Plaintiffs concerns expressed to supervisors and managers employed by
Defendants and including Spataro relating to the accounting irregularities were serious
matters of legitimate public concern that violate laws and regulations of the state of Texas.
Questions were also posed to purchasing agents and Treasury employees about Plaintiffs
concerns.
15. Defendant Spataro, in her capacity as a policy-making officer of the Travis County
Auditor's Office, terminated Ms. Johnson's employment in retaliation for her protected
-'.
speech on matters of legitimate public concern in violation of Ms. Johnson's rights of
freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. Plaintiff was terminated allegedly for being "disruptive" in the
workplace, when she was merely trying to ascertain the propriety of the accounting and
auditing principles applied in the workplace. Plaintiff was also denied an opportunity to be
properly heard and produce evidence in the grievance proceedings, despite assurances
from Spataro that she would be allowed an opportunity to produce more evidence through
open records requests.
Plaintiffs Original Petition Page 4 of7

7/24/08 New Suits
16. The actions of Defendant Spataro deprived Ms. Johnson of her First Amendment
Rights provided to her by the provisions of the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, made actionable by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
17. Defendant Spataro acted without authorization of law, willfully, knowingly, and
purposely, with the specific intent of depriving Ms. Johnson of her First and Fourteenth
..Amendment rights of free speech.
VII. DAMAGES
18. As a result of the unlawful conduct by Defendants, Ms. Johnson has suffered and
continues to suffer loss of comparable employment, loss of past and future income, loss of
past and future employment benefits, loss of future earning capacity, and suffered and
, continues to suffer emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of opportunities
for career advancement, and damage to reputation. In addition, Plaintiff's need to retain an
attorney to bring this action to recover against Defendant, required her to pay attorney's
fees and costs associated with filing suit and presenting evidence. Plaintiff also seeks
prejudgment interest on all damages.
VIII. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
19. Ms. Johnson would further show that the acts and omissions of Defendants
complained of herein were committed with malice or reckless indifference to the protected
rights of Ms. Johnson. In order to punish Defendants for engaging in unlawful
discrimination and retaliation and to deter such actions and/or omissions in the future, Ms.
Johnson also seeks recovery from Defendants for exemplary damages.
IX. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
20. Plaintiff hereby requests trial by jury in the above numbered and styled cause.

7/24/08 New Suits
X. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
21. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Defendants are requested to disclose,
within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(a-I). Demand is hereby made for the supplementation of
responses to this Request for Disclosure as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
193.5.
XI. RELIEF SOUGHT
22. Plaintiff seeks prospective and/or injunctive relief against Defendant Spataro in her
official capacity under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The prospective relief sought includes Plaintiff's
. reinstatement of employment and an injunction to prevent future violations of Plaintiffs civil
rights by Spataro.
23. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendant Spataro in her individual capacity
under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for the damages set forth in this Petition.
24. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendant the Travis County Auditor's Office
under the Texas Whistleblower Act for the damages set forth in this Petition.
XII. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer,
and that on final trial, the Plaintiff have the following:
1. Judgment against the Defendant for a sum far in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court;
2. Plaintiff be granted both compensatory and punitive damages
3. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

7/24/08 New Suits
4. Plaintiff be granted judgment for reasonable attorney's fees;
5. Costs of suit; and
6. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
7IFICE~F DOMINIC
AUDINO
. (/ ~ LA r' .
DOMINIC AUDINO
SBN 24025861
One Arboretum Plaza
9442 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 500
Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 251-5004 Voice
(512) 252-2850 Facsimile
ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Exhibit c.
CAUSE NO. D-I-GN-08-002659
..•.. I . .:x
•... O::!:-
HEATHER JOHNSON § IN THE DISTRICT COURa'~ ro i3
§ u~
_I- oc
<G
~
V. § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, T~S ~ ~
§ i5 g r-'- ~
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO § (])
o C\1::":" ~
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL § 200THJUDICIAL DISTRI~ (.!) ~

.- ~ ~ a::
CAPACITIES § '01- .~
(])_ c;;
O
u: <~
NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
Please take notice that Defendants' Notice of Removal of the above-entitled action from
the Travis County District Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division (a copy of which Notice [without exhibits] is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A") was duly filed this day in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division.
You are also advised that Defendants upon filing of Defendants' Notice of Removal and
a copy of the Notice with the Clerk of the state court, have effected this removal in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §1446(d).
DAVID ESCAMILLA
County Attorney, Travis County
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513
Facsimile: (512) 854-4808
By: ~~
Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel
ATIORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal was
served on all coun-sel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested on the 2ih day of
August, 2008.
Via Certified Mail RlRIR #7004 0750 0002 0227 7319

Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
Attorney for Plaintiff
~~
Leslie W. Dippel
Exhibit ·4_
.JS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
'he JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provide,
y local rules of COUtt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of mrtiatm,
ie civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM)
(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Heather Johnson Travis County, Texas and Susan Spataro in

Her Individual and Official Capacity
(b) Williamson ~T~r...;a;;,.v...;i..;;s _
County of Residence of First
(EXCEPT
Listed Plaintiff
IN U.S. PLAINTIFF
~~~~~--------
CASES)
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCA TION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
See Attachment 1 See Attachment 1
L BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL P ARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintifl
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
U.S. Government l!II 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State l!II I l!II I Incorporated 01' Principal Place 0 4 0 4
of Business In This State
U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o 2 o 2 Incorporated find Principal Place o 5 0 5
Defendant ofBusiness In Another State
.(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
o 3 CJ 3 Foreign Nation o 6 0 6
II. NATURE OF SUIT Place an "X" in One Box Onl

. ~~ ".: y~ :~~;" "'" ~ •., ,_ ,/§ 'rH' ,
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY o 610 Agriculture o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 400 State Reapportionment
120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personalln,iury- o 620 Other Food & Drug o 423 Withdrawal o 410 Antitrust
130 M iller Act 0 315 A irplane Product Med. Malpractice o 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 o 430 Banks and Banking
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 o 450 Commerce
150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability D 630 Liquor Laws o 460 Deportation
& Enforcementof Judgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal D 640 R.R. & Truck o 820 Copyrights o 470 Racketeer Influenced and
151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product o 650 Airline Regs. o 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability o 660 Occupational o 840 Trademark o 480 Consumer Credit
Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health o 490 Cable/Sat TV
(Excl Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud 0690 Other o 810 Selective Service
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending' o 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards o 861 HIA (1395f1) Exchange
160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act CJ 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge
190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations o 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g» 12 USC 3410
195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Product Liability 0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting o 864 SSIO Title XVI 0 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Inju & Disclosure Act o 865 RSI (405( » 0 891 Agricultural AClS
~~~, ~~Rle'J!. il'<.~-~:;~< ,~'~-iijj.
~·~~~·~.~t:g!!·~'!itR!i;li}1!·Rfi:m~~~" ~,~.!if§i!i!~~·
~,,~le~'~'~' 0ft~'i' .~: ~'~.NEIl]l!ii'~;'!!l'i"!i!!1n!i"!§i~D740
.~"'~i'i··"i:.::!i!<·'· Railway Labor Act =~;:f.l~ilE~Il~E~E!<~iI!li!:;>~':;:>I'~·,'l!'!S,"OO;;;!;;:t~;mI.~
0 892 Economic Stabilization Act
210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 790 Other Labor Litigation o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure !]I. 442 Employment Sentence 0 791 EmpJ. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy A llocation Act
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act D 871 IRS-Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information
240 Tons to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
245 Ton Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty o 900Appeal of Fee Detenninatio
290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other o 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights o 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice
o 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee o 950 Constitutionality of
Other D 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
o 440 Other Civil Rights Actions
ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to District

0 0 5 0 6 0 7 Judge from
l Original ~ 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or Transferred from Multidistrict
Magistrate
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened another district Litigation
s ecif Jud ment
CiB tJ <'S~C~i~ilf~4u1( ~)der which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
. CAUSE OF ACTION t--~--'---":-;"--------------------------

Brief description of cause:
Violation ot the 1st &14th Amendments ot the U.S. Constitution, I exas Whistle blower Act; & retaliation
I. REQUESTED IN o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT: UNDER FRCP 23 JURY DEMAND: Ii Yes 0 No
rr. RELATED CASE(S)

(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
TE SIGNA TURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
~~
R OFFlCE USE ONLY
ECEIPT# AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

ATIACHMENT 1.
ATT ACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
Attorney for Heather Johnson
Defendants' Attorneys:
Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel
Travis County Assistant County Attorneys
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 420
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone Number: (512) 854-9513
Fax Number: (512) 854-8408
Attorneys for Travis County and
Susan Spataro
Attachment 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
Supplement to JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet

Cases Removed from State District Court
This form must be filed with the Clerk's Office no later than the first business day following
the filing of the Notice of Removal. Additional sheets may be used as necessary.
The attorney of record for the removing party MUST sign this form.
1. Please identify the court from which the case is being removed; the case number; and the complete
style of the case.
Cause No. D-1-GN-08-002659
Heather Johnson, § In the District Court

Plaintiff §
§
v. § 200th Judicial District
§
Travis County, Texas, and Susan §
Spataro, in her individual and Official §
Capacity,
o
2. Was jLJry demand made in State Court? Yes [RJ No C

If yes, by which party and on what date?
Heather Johnson, Plaintiff July 24, 2008

Party Name Date

1. List all plaintiffs, defendants, and intervenors still remaining in the case. Also, please list the
Party Attorney of Record
Heather Johnson, Plaintiff Dominic Audino
One Arboretum Plaza
9442 N. Capital ofTexas Hwy., Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 251-5004 Voice
(512) 252-2850 Facsimile
Travis County and Anthony J. Nelson

Susan Spataro, Defendants Leslie W. Dippel
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, Texas 78767
Telephone: (512) 854-9513

2. List all parties that have not been served at the time of the removal, and the reason(s) for
non-service.
Travis County and Susan Spataro. Defendants have agreed to waive service of citation.
3. List all parties that have been non-suited, dismissed, or terminated, and the reason(s) for their
removal from the case.
None.
COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS, and/or THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS:

1. List separately each counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim still remaining in the case and
designate the nature of each such claim. For each counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim,
include all plaintiffs, defendants, and intervenors still remaining in the case. Also, please list the
None.
VERIFICATION:
August 27, 2007

Attorney for Removing Party Date
Travis County and Susan Spataro, Defendants

Party/Parties

COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHERINE E. THO MASt
FIRST ASSISTANT
ELAINE A. CASAS
JAMES W. COLLINS
314 W. 11TH, STREET ANTHONY J. NELSON

GRANGER BLDG., SUITE 420
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 LESLIE W. DIPPEL
P. O. BOX 1748
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
(512) 854·9513
t~OP STEPHEN
ENNIFER
TMEMBER OF
KRABER
H. CAPELLE
THE COl.LEGE
FAX: (512) 854·4808 OF THE STATE BAR
August 27, 2008
Via Hand Deliv

Amalia Rodri ez-Mendoza
Travis Coun District Clerk
1000 Guad upe Street
Austin, T as 78701
Cause No. D-1-GN-08-002659; Heather Johnson v. Travis County

Texas and Susan Spataro, in her Individual and Official Capacity; In
the 200thJudicial District Court; Travis County, Texas
Dear Ms. Rodriguez-Mendoza:
Enclosed please fmd a copy of the Notice of Filing Notice of Removal, including exhibits,
filed in the above-referenced matter on this date. Please note that the Notice of Removal has been
filed with Clerk of Court, United States District Court, Western District of Texas.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Leslie W. Dippel
LWD/mpc
=r
cc: VDominic Audino, with enclosures (via CMRRR # 7004 0750 0002 0227 7319)
COUNTY ATTORNEY
SHERINE E. THOMASt
FIRST ASSISTANT
ELAINE A. CASAS
JAMES W. COLLINS
314 W. 11TH, STREET ANTHONY J. NELSON

GRANGER BLDG., SUITE 420
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 LESLIE W. DIPPEL
P. O. BOX 1748 JENNIFER KRABER

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
STEPHEN H. CAPELLE
(512) 854-9513
tMEMBER OF THE COLLEGE
FAX, (512) 854-4808 OF THE STATE BAR
September 4, 2008
Via Certified Mail

RRR #7004 0750 0002 0227 7333
Dominic Audino
The Law Offices of Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
Re: Cause No. A-08-CA-643-SS; Heather Johnson v. Travis County

and Susan Spataro in her Individual and Official Capacities; In
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division
Dear Mr. Audino:
Enclosed please find Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro's Original Answer
filed today with regard to the above mentioned matter.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
~~
Leslie W. Dippel
LWD/mpc
Enc.
AUSTIN DIVISION
§
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, § "
/
§ /
!
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
..
J
§
. TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN § .:.'1
//
-SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, §
Defendants. §
DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S

ORIGINAL ANSWER
COME NOW Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro ("Defendants"), by
and through their attorney of record and file this Original Answer. Defendants offer the
following in support:
Answer
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), Defendants deny each and every
allegation contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition except those expressly admitted
herein. The following specific admissions and denials are made to the corresponding
I '.•
paragraphs of Plaintiffs Original Petition.

-' ...
-- - ....
A_ ._ ~ _ '
I. Discovery Level
1. Paragraph 1 is a reference to the specific discovery levels in TEX. R. Crv.
P. 190. Because these rules do not apply in this Court, this Paragraph does not require an
admission or denial.
DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S ORlGfNAL ANSWER
187814.1 Page 1 of7

II. Parties
,
2. Defendants lack sufficient information and knowledge to form a belief as
to the truth or accuracy of the assertions contained in Paragraph 2 of "Plaintiffs Original
Petition. "
3. Defendants admit that Travis County, Texas is a local governmental entity
within the State of Texas .. Defendants deny the remainder of Paragraph 3 of "Plaintiffs
Original Petition."
4. Defendants admit that Susan Spataro is an individual who is a citizen of
Texas residing in Travis County. Defendants deny the remainder of Paragraph 4 of
"Plaintiffs Original Petition."
III. Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter of this action.
IV. Jurisdictional Prerequisites
6. Defendants admit the Plaintiff has exhausted the acts required as
conditions precedent to filing this cause of action.
Factual Background
7. Defendants admit the Plaintiff was hired as an Associate Auditor I in
November, 2007. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7 of"
Plaintiffs Original Petition."
8. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of" Plaintiffs
Original Petition .."
DEfENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S ORIGiNAL ANSWER
187814.1 Page 2 of7

9. Defendants admit Plaintiffs employment was terminated on June 4, 2008,
but deny the termination was for pre-textual reasons. Defendants deny the remainder of
the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of" Plaintiffs Original Petition.".
VI. Cause of Action
10. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of "Plaintiffs
Original Petition."
Original Petition."
12. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of "Plaintiff's
Original Petition."
Count II
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
13. Defendants all allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of "Plaintiff's
Original Petition."
14. Defendants all allegations contained ill Paragraph 14 of "Plaintiffs
Original Petition."
Original Petition."
Original Petition."
17. Defendants deny all allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of" Plaintiffs
Original Petition."
DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S ORlGlNAL ANSWER

I
187814.1 Page 3 of7
VII. Damages
Original Petition."
VIII. Exemplary Damages
Original Petition."
IX. Request for Jury Trial
20. Paragraph 20 is Plaintiffs request for jury trial which does not require an
X. Request for Disclosure
21. Paragraph 21 is Plaintiffs request for disclosure under TEX. R. CIV. P.
194. Because this rule does not apply to this Court, this Paragraph does not require an
XI. Relief Sought
22. Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, however,
Defendants deny the merits of Plaintiffs claim against them. Further, pursuant to Rule
8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is not necessary for Defendants to admit
or deny the amount of damages Plaintiff requests. Therefore, Defendants deny all
allegations contained in Paragraphs 22, 23, and 24.
XII. Prayer
23. Section XII IS Plaintiffs prayer for relief which does not require an
DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S ORIGINAL ANSWER
187814.1 Page 4 of?

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
24. To the extent that Defendants are sued in their official capacities,
Defendants assert their right to sovereign immunity to Plaintiffs claims as none of
Plaintiffs claims are the result of a policy or procedure of Travis County, 42 U.S.C. §
1983,28 US.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
25. To the extent that Defendants are sued in their official capacities for
alleged state law violations, Defendants assert they are entitled to sovereign immunity,
both from suit and from liability, except insofar as the Texas Legislature has provided a
limited waiver of its sovereign immunity by way of the Texas Tort Claims Act
(hereinafter "the Act").
26. Defendants deny that they acted separately or in concert to engage in
illegal conduct to injure Plaintiff. Defendants deny that Plaintiff was deprived of any
right, privilege or immunity granted or secured by the Constitution and/or laws of the
United States or the State of Texas.
27. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendants acted in their
official capacities with the good faith belief that their actions were proper under the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Texas. Therefore, Defendants
assert their entitlement to the defense of qualified and official immunity.
28. To the extent that they are sued in their official capacities under state law,
Defendants assert the defense of "derivative" sovereign immunity because, as
individuals, they are entitled to official or qualified immunity relating to their interactions
(if any) with the Plaintiff. Because the Texas Tort Claims Act provides that a
governmental unit is liable to the extent a private person would be liable, an employee's

I
187814.1 Page 5 of7

official or qualified immunity triggers sovereign immunity for official capacity claims.
DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W. 2d 650 (1995).
29. To the extent Defendants are sued in their official capacities, Plaintiff is
not entitled to exemplary damages.
30. Defendants assert that Travis County, Texas, is a political subdivision of
the State of Texas and enjoys sovereign immunity, both from suit and from liability.
Travis County hereby affirmatively pleads and asserts its claim to and defense of
sovereign immunity from suit and liability.
31. As to each count, without conceding that Plaintiff has suffered any
damages as a result of any purported wrongful act or omission, Plaintiff has a duty to
mitigate any alleged damages and has failed to reasonably mitigate her alleged damages.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that Plaintiff
take nothing by way of her suit, that Plaintiff's suit be dismissed with prejudice as to the
Defendants, and that Defendants recover all costs of court, as well as such other and
further relief to which they may be so justly entitled.
DAVID ESCAMILLA
TRA VIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
P. O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767-
(512) 854-9415
FAX: (512) 854-4808
DEFENDANTS TRA VIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S ORlGINAL ANSWER
187814_1 Page 6 of7

By:
ANTHONY J. NELSON
Assistant Travis County Attorney
LESLIE W. DIPPEL
Attorney for Defendants Travis
County and Susan Spataro
I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendants' Original Answer has been served
as indicated below, on September 4,2008:
CERTIFIED MAIL RlRIR #7004 0750 0002 0227 7333

Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Anthony J. Nelson
Leslie W. Dippel
187814.1 Page 7 of7

Filed in The District Court
.' of Travis County, Texas
C I TAT ION
THE S TAT E o F T E X A S
LM SEP 05 2008
CAUSE NO, D-1-GN-08-002659
At q:35",
Amalia Rodriguez.MeMoz8, Clerk
M.
HEATHER JOHNSON
, Plaintiff
vs.
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND SUSAN SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY
, Defendant
TO: TRAVIS COUNTY

C/O J. ELLIOTT BECK / CRAIG SMITH / J. CASEY ROY
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 1748
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
Defendant, in the above styled and numbered cause:
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. You may employ an attorney. If you or your attorney do not file a written
answer with the clerk who issued this citation by 10:00 A.M, on the Monday next following the
expir-a-loion-<::>£-twenty w.e~e s~~ve.'L thili!citati.9.!l-and..J>eti_ti<?_~,- a default j~d~ent
days a-£ter_y<::>u may
be taken against you.
Attached is a copy of the PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION of the PLAINTIFF in the above styled and
numbered cause, which was filed on JULY 24, 2008 in the 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of Travis
County, Austin, Texas,
ISSUED AND GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court at office, July 24, 2008.
REQUESTED BY: AMALIA RODRIGUEZ-MENDOZA

DOMINIC AUDINO Travis County District Clerk
ONE ARBORETUM PLAZA Travis County Courthouse
9442 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY., STE. 500 1000 Guadalupe, P.O. Box 679003 (78767)
AUSTIN, TX 78~59 Austin, Texas 78701
BUSINESS PHONE: (512) 251-5004
BY~~
SEAN AUSTIN, Deputy
RETURN
Came to hand on the __ day of _ at _ o'clock __ M., and executed at
________________________ within the County of on the
day of _ ____ , at 0' clock __ M., by delivering to the within named
__~--------~--------~~-~---~-_=--~-_=~-~=_-~~--~~'
each in
person, a true copy of this citation together with the accompanying pleading, having first attached such copy
of such citation to such copy of pleading and endorsed on such copy of citation the date of delivery.
Service Fee: $
Sheriff / Constable / Authorized Person
Sworn to-and subscribed before me this the
By: _
__ day of
Printed Name of Server
County, Texas
Notary Public, THE STATE OF TEXAS
D-1-~-08-002659 SERVICE FEE NOT PAID 001 - 30171
~ Original I]Service Copy

200th Judicial District Travis County
Plaintiff
Heather Johnson
Case No .. D-1-GN-08-004659
Defendant
Travis County, Texas and Susan Spataro in her individual
and Official Capacity
RETURN OF SERVICE
Received on 8/13/2008 at 1:00 00 PM
I Heather C. Hogan, being duly sworn, depose and say, I have been duly authorized by the Supreme Court of Texas to serve
Citations and other Notices as well as make service of the document(s) listed herein in the above styled case.
That on 912/-2D08 at 3:3.0:QO PM, LPe[SQ[l gjlLdeJ Lvered Citaiion with Original Petition to Travis County c/o J. Elliott Beck/Craig
Smith/J. Casey Roy assistant county attorney by delivery SusanSpataro:-aF p.o. box 1748 , a·us In~Texas 78767.-- ~-
Military Status N/A
I am of sound mind, capable of making this Affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts here in stated. I am an adult over the age of 18
years of age and I am not a party to this suit and have no interest in the outcome of the suit. I have never been convicted of any felony or
crime involving moral turpitude and am competent to make this oath. I am able to perform the service of citation, summons, notice, or
sub ena promptly and.correctly pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 103. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have
rea the f going Retu n of Service and that the facts stated in it are true and correct and are within my personal knowledge.
('::>I a ~ Executed on q-4--0 ([

~ather C Hogan, S
Weeks & Associates, LLC

316 West 12th Street, 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-9989
State of Texas
. County of Travis J
Sworn and ~ys7Jbed
1
before me, a Notary, given my hand and seal of office this __ ( day of
C
_/ftIJ f- 20 'De
/l1/tAUtU ~-
,. Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
10: 8094
Client Reference: 562.08
Service Fee $
i:" _
WEEKS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
INVOICE
I
Weeks and Associates, L.L.C
316 West 12th, Ste. 316
Austin, TX 7870 I
Phone: (512) 472-9989 I
Fax: (512) 494-1133
Dominic Audino, Attorney at Law

I~ Inv. No.: 562.08-8094
9442 Capital of Texas Highway, Plaza I, Ste. 500 9/4/2008
Austin, TX 78755
Case Number: D-I-GN-08-002659

Plaintiff: Heather Johnson
Defendant: Travis County, Texas and Susan Spataro in her individual and Official Capacity
Reference: 562.08
Serve To: Travis County c/o J. Elliott Beck/Craig Smith/J. Casey Roy assistant county attorney
Received: 8113/2008
Completed: 9/2/2008
Item Qty. Unit Tax Total
Citation $65.00 0 $65.00
Tax $0.00
Sub-Total $65.00
Payment $0.00
Balance Due $65.00
TAX ID #74-2876182
Thank You!
Terms: Due Upon Receipt
Past due invoices subject to late fees - $15.00, plus 1.5% per month - We accept Me/VISA
Visit Our Website@ www.carlweeks.com - TAX ID #74-2876182

AUSTIN DIVISION
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTlON NO. A:08-CA-643-SS
§
TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN §
SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, §
Defendants. § .,
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REMAND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT: .

. / , '
Heather Johnson, Plaintiff in this action, movesthis Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c), foran order remanding this action to theTravis County200thJudiciai District Court .
.':/!., " '-
.!
Plaintiff'sc. moves on the. grounds that her state and federal claims are separate and
. i" ._ .
independent, that her state Whistleblower claim arises under the Texas Government Code, r
expressly granting jurisdiction in state district court, and that it presents a novel issue of state
law. Furthermore, Plaintiffs predominant Whistleblower .claim requires interpretation of

'.. ',,: .
, ~
state statutes, and greatlyimpacts Travis County. Lastly, Plaintiff's collateral constitutional
>
claims share concurrent jurisdiction with state courts. Plaintiff, therefore, asks this Court to
remand Plaintiff s entire case 'and contends that doing so will further the interests of judicial
economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants. In support of this motion, Plaintiff shows:
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2008, Plainti~f filed a Whistleblower action in Travis County's 200th District
COUli with claims for retaliation under Tex. Gov't. Code §554.001 and constitutional violations'
MOTION TO REMAND - PAGE 1-

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
,.
under 42 U.S.c. §1983. No
diversity exists between the parties. On August 27, 2008, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal
based on 28 u.s.c. § 1441(a) and claiming federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. §
1446. On September 4, 2008, Defendants answered the lawsuit. Plaintiff now files this Motion.
Plaintiff made a good faith complaint of auditing irregularities and formula practices to
Jose Palacios, and later given to April Bacon and Susan Spataro, who are appropriate law
enforcement personnel within the Travis County Auditor's Office. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff
was reprimanded, placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and terminated in retaliation for
exposing the inrregularities. Her complaint resulted in changes to auditing; procurement and
contracting procedures, thereby fulfilling the legislative intent of the Whistleblower statute by
improving Texas government. She now seeks redress under the Whistleblower statute.
II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
The Fifth Circuit has stated § 1444(c) "permits [courts] to remand the entire action, federal
claims and all, if the state law claims predominate." Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 FJd
100, 106 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Metro Ford Truck Sales v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320,
327-28 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 1441(c) permits courts to remand an entire action, or distinct
claims, both state and federal, if state law predominates. For reasons of comity, the federal court
should ordinarily remand the state claims if the state issues predominate or if the federal claims
are dismissed before substantial proceedings have taken place in the federal court. Till v. Unifirst
Federal S. & L. Ass'n, 653 F.2d 152, 161, 162 (5th Cir. [Miss.] 1981).
§ 1441(c) is operative when unrelated claims are joined in a state court. When this occurs,
the law allows defendants to remove the entire case to federal court, provided one or more claims
. J\10TION TO REMAND -PAGE2-

satisfy federal question jurisdiction. Such removal is subject to the court's "broad" discretion to
remand the "separate and independent" claims back to state court if those claims are governed
predominantly by state law. Anderson v. Red River Waterway, 231 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2000).
A. Plaintiff's state law claim is separate and independent from the federal claims
The Supreme Court has defined "separate and independent" claims as those arising from
different sets of facts and different wrongs inflicted upon the plaintiff. "Where there is only a
single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of
transactions, there is no 'separate and independent' claim." American Fire & Casualty Co. v.
Finn, 341 U.S. 6,13 (1951); see also Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, LP, 97 F.3d 100, 106-107
(5th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiffs constitutional claims arise from Defendants' deprivation of her
procedural due process in grievance proceedings. Plaintiffs claims involve numerous wrongs to
Plaintiff and separate incidents and acts that rely on differing facts to support them.
Plaintiff made a good faith Whistleblower complaint against her former employer the
Travis County Auditor's Office that resulted in her termination. Plaintiff alleged numerous
wrongs including: written reprimands beginning immediately after her complaint, false
statements regarding her work performance, termination, and other harms separate and
independent of the Defendants' obligation to provide procedural due process in grievance
proceedings. Her suit seeks injunctive relief for the constitutional claims, as well as monetary
relief to remedy the Whistleblower wrongdoings. The constitutional claims, associated wrongs,
and the facts in support thereof are quite separate from and independent of Plaintiffs state claim.
The Fifth Circuit has elaborated on separate and independent. "A federal claim is separate
and independent if it involves an obligation distinct from the non-removable claims in the case."

Texas v. Walker, 142 F.3d 813,817 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1102 (l999)(holding
that university's claims against professor for breach of teaching contract in failing to remit
professional fees was a separate and distinct claim from professor's claim of improper
termination). Here, the Defendants, as Plaintiff's employers, had an obligation to provide
Plaintiff with a right to procedural due process in grievance proceedings.
This affirmative obligation is distinct from the obligation not to reprimand her, not to
terminate her wrongfully, not to make false statements about her, and not to cause her emotional
distress relative to her Whistleblower complaint. In fact, Plaintiff's state law claim could have
been brought against Defendants regardless of whether the County terminated her and despite
the County's failure to provide an opportunity to be properly heard in grievance proceedings.
Cases interpreting separate and independent have found that the test for separateness is
the separateness of the wrong to the Plaintiff. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6,
71 S.Ct. 534,95 L.Ed. 702 (1951) at 540. Here the wrongs to Plaintiff are Defendants' retaliation
for Plaintiff's good faith complaint, as well as Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights by depriving Plaintiff of procedural due process in grievance proceedings. The wrongs to
Plaintiff resulting from her state Whistleblower claim are clearly separate and independent of the
wrongs to Plaintiff resulting from the constitutional claims.
A claim is not independent if it "involve[s] substantially the same facts." Addison v.
Gulf Coast Contracting Servs. 744 F.2d 494 (51h Or. 1984) (quoting American Fire & Casualty
Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951 )). In the case at bar, Plaintiffs state
law claim will NOT involve "substantially the same facts" as her constitutional claims and will
require substantially different evidence to prevail. Plaintiff's state Whistleblower retaliation
MOTION TO REMAND - PAGE4-

claim will rely on different facts and require proof of elements other than those supporting the
constitutional claims. Texas caselaw supports Plaintiffs position on the separateness and
independence of her state Whistleblower and constitutional claims.
Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, LP, 97 F Jd 100 (5th Cir. 1996) is an analogous case
involving the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The Eastus plaintiff filed claims for
retaliation under the FMLA, for tortious interference with a prospective contract, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The state tortious interference claim was remanded as it was
found to be separate and independent of the remaining claims and the court found a remand of
the entire case including federal and state claims is possible under specific facts. Jd at 106
In Plaintiff's complaint, her constitutional claims are not dependent on facts supporting
the Whistleblower claim, and include several independent wrongs to Plaintiff as alleged in her
petition, rather than one wrong. In making all determinations of separateness and independence,
the complaint controls. See American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 13 (1951) at 14;
Moore v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 819 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir.1987) at 103. Plaintiff's petition
alleges multiple Whistleblower wrongs involving loss of back wages and associated damages,
none of which depend on facts involving the constitutional claims for which she seeks injunctive
relief. For these reasons and because the state Whistleblower predominates the matter, as
discussed at II(B)(2) below, Plaintiffs state law claims are separate and independent of the
constitutional claims and are, therefore, suitable for remand.
B. This Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claims
The relevant statutes support Plaintiff's claim for remand. 28 U.S.c. § I 367(c) provides
that [t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under
MOTION TO REMAND -PAGE5-

subsection (a) if: 1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law; 2) the claim
substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original
jurisdiction; 3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction;
or 4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
1. Plaintiff's Whistleblower claim raises a novel issue of state law
Plaintiff's claims should be heard in Travis County district court because they involve a
novel issue of state law. Plaintiff's claims involve the county auditor's auditing procedures that
violate the Texas Government Code and Local Government Code. Defendants' mishandling of
state funds and purchasing contracts are novel issues of state law strongly affecting Travis
County residents. Plaintiff's claims of widespread negligence and retaliation in the auditor's
office warrant a remand. Defendants' conduct and failure to identify and cure clear problems also
raise novel questions of law inherently local in nature that warrant local adjudication.
2. Plaintiff's Whistleblower claim predominates over constitutional claims
According to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), it is within a court's discretion to remand claims that,
among other things, involve a matter in which state law predominates. The commentary on the
1990 revision of § 1441(c) suggests that state law predominates [i]f the federal court finds that
the federal claim, while plausible, is not really the plaintiffs main mission, that it is only an
incident or adjunct of the state claim, and that the state claim is the crux of the action .... 28
D.S.C. § 1441 Commentary (West 1994).
Plaintiff's constitutional claims are collateral to the state law Whistleblower claim.
Plaintiff's state claim is clearly the crux of her action as it was the impetus for her reprimands
and termination. State law clearly predominates this suit, thereby affording the court discretion to
MOTION TO REMAND - PAGE6-

order a remand. Although no claims have been dismissed, Plaintiff asks this Court, for the
foregoing reasons, to remand the entire cause back to the Travis County 200th District Court. In
addition, exceptional circumstances exist for this Court to refrain from exercising its jurisdiction.
3. This Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the subject
matter of Plaintiffs' claims due to exceptional circumstances
Plaintiffs Whistleblower claim is of critical importance to the Travis County community
and this case should be heard in Travis County district court. Because the Whistleblower claim
expressly provides for jurisdiction in a state district court,' and the constitutional claims share
concurrent jurisdiction, this court should cease to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims.
Furthermore, a Plaintiff may maintain an action comprised of constitutional claims under
42 U.S.C. 1983 in a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction because state courts have
concurrent jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. 1983; Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).
Here, Plaintiff chose jurisdiction in Travis County, the state court in which her claims
arose. The remaining claims in this action are ancillary to the Whistleblower claim. Federal court
is not an appropriate forum for Plaintiffs claims due to the need to interpret Texas statutes.
C. This Court's exercise of jurisdiction over state claims is unnecessary
Not only are Plaintiffs constitutional claims collateral to Plaintiffs state claim, but when
considered in light of the predominant Whistleblower claim and its effects on Texas local
government, the issues warrant a trial in state court. Plaintiff specifically enumerated a
Whistleblower claim against a former employer and local government body pursuant to the
I According to Texas Government Code Section 557(b), venue is proper, "in a district court of the county in which
the cause of action arises or in a district court of any county in the same geographic area that has established with the
county in which the cause of action arises a council of governments or other regional commission under Chapter 391,
Texas Local Government Code."
MOTION TO REMAND -PAGE7-

Texas Government Code. Plaintiff alleges misapplication of auditing, procurement and
contracting procedures that violate Texas law. Due to the importance of this state law
Whistleblower claim on the local community and the predominance of the Whistleblower claim
in this matter, this court's exercise of jurisdiction over the Whistleblower claim is unwarranted.
The power of a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims need not be
exercised in every case in which it is found to exist. It has consistently been recognized that
pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiffs right. Its justification lies in
considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are not present
a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to
apply state law to them. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64.
This Court has discretion to remand Plaintiffs entire case given the predominance of
Plaintiffs state claim. It is a well-established rule that federal courts have discretion in hearing
supplemental state claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-727 (1966). Trial
courts should look to "considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants"
in exercising its discretion and should avoid needless decisions of state law. ld. Because.
Plaintiffs Whistleblower claim predominates the matter, her claims should be remanded.
D. Judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants require remand
If it appears that the state issues substantially predominate, whether in terms of proof, of
the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought, the state claims
may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to state tribunals. United Adine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,-727 (1966). Judicial economy is best served by remanding
Plaintiffs predominant state Whistleblower claim and collateral federal claims.

1. Judicial Economy is best served by remanding Plaintiffs claims
Judicial economy is best served by a remand. Remanding Plaintiffs predominant
Whistleblower claim and constitutional claims would not only foster judicial economy, but
would also further notions of convenience and promote fairness in this litigation. In the interest
of judicial economy and to the extent any portion of Plaintiffs claims are within this Court's
discretion, Plaintiff asks the Court to remand this case in its entirety in order to serve judicial
economy by foregoing the need for duplicitous litigation in state and federal courts or a remand
after judgment is rendered. Furthermore, because this court has ordered the parties to enter into a
scheduling order, a remand of this entire matter before the entry of such an order would save the
parties and this Court the time and efforts of docketing claims that would later be remanded.
2. Convenience is best served by remanding Plaintiffs claims
Remanding Plaintiff s claims would be convenient for the parties and, at the very least,
would not work an injustice on any party to this matter. Defendants and most, if not all,
witnesses to this suit report for work across the street from the Travis County courthouse. The
suit was filed and would be heard minutes from Defendants' place of business and Defendants'
counsel, likewise, operates within a stone's throw of the Travis County Courthouse. Furthermore,
no unnecessary delays would result from a remand of this action. Convenience and fairness
dictate that Plaintiff s election in state court be honored by a remand.
3. Fairness is best served by remanding Plaintiffs claims
A plaintiffs intent to be heard in state court is a factor within the Court's discretion. Doe
v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir.1993)(citing 28 V.S.C. § 1441). Courts should
interpret the removal statute narrowly and presume that the plaintiff may choose his or her forum.

ld. (citing Illinois v. Kerr- McGee Chem. Corp., 677 F.2d 571, 576 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459
U.S. 1049 (1982». Any doubt regarding jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of the states. ld.
Needless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote
justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law. Erie
R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64.
In the interest of fairness and justice, Plaintiff asks this Court to use its discretion to
remand all claims. Plaintiff's predominate Whistleblower claim involves a Texas statutory claim
that requires interpretation of the Texas Government Code and Local Government Code, is one
of inherently strong local interest and in no way triggers federal adjudication. The Whistleblower
claim so overshadows the constitutional claims, that federal jurisdiction should not be
maintained. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160,1171 (5th Cir. [Tex.] 1988) (holding if the
federal issue is collateral in nature, so that the primary legal issues involve matters of strong local
interest, federal jurisdiction is not proper).
Plaintiffs allegations of negligence by the Travis County Auditor's Office by way of
incorrect auditing, procurement and contracting procedures have a tremendous impact on Travis
County. The misuse of Travis County funds is an issue of a strong local nature that requires local
adjudication. Because constitutional claims may be adjudicated in state court, Plaintiff asks the
Court to honor Plaintiffs state court election. To find to the contrary would undermine the
legislative intent of the Whistleblower statute, expressly conferring jurisdiction in state district
court and could frustrate future Whistleblowers' attempts to improve Texas government.

III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
This Court has discretion to hear Plaintiffs claims. Because the state law claim is
separate and independent from Plaintiffs constitutional claims, and because it predominates over
the federal claims, a remand is proper in this case. The Texas Government Code expressly
authorizes jurisdiction for Plaintiffs state law Whistleblower claim in Travis County district
court and involves novel issues of state law. Plaintiffs constitutional claims are subject to
permissive state court jurisdiction. Plaintiff asks that this court refrain from needless decisions of
state law and to consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether to remand
Plaintiffs entire case to the court where Plaintiff elected to be heard.
Plaintiffs federal claims are collateral to Plaintiffs Whistleblower claim, which is of
great importance to the local community. The novel issues of state law in this matter also require
local fact finders to decide matters of strong local importance, rather than the federal court
system. To remand would further considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness
to litigants and realize the legislative intent of the Whistleblower statute. In equity, Plaintiffs
.claims should be tried together in the forum selected by Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the court to order this cause be remanded back to the
Travis County 200th Judicial District Court on the grounds that this Court shares jurisdiction over
the subject matter of Plaintiffs constitutional claims and has discretion to remand Plaintiffs
predominant state law claim and separate and distinct constitutional claims. In addition,
Plaintiffs Whistleblower claim presents a novel state law issue of great importance to the local
community warranting remand of all claims.
MOTION TO REMAND -PAGEll-

In the alternative, if the court does not remand the entire case, Plaintiff requests that this
court remand Plaintiff's Whistleblower claim back to the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis
County, Texas and maintain federal jurisdiction over only the constitutional claims.
IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED that Plaintiff be allowed such writs and processes as may
be necessary to expedite the order of this court.
TH7'CA-W,OFFI~~ OF DOMINIC AUDINO
II
\/i..--, '.. i
DOMINIC AUDINO - SBN 24025861

One Arboretum Plaza .
Austin, Texas 78759
(512) 251-5004 Voice
(512) 252-2850 Facsimile
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the. foregoing instrument was served on the
Defendants' counsel Leslie W. Dipple via facsimile at (512) 854-4808 before 5:00 pm, in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the 16th day of September, 2008.
<:".
L/(l-v ( /!
/:
DOMINIC AUDINO
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I Dominic Audino, as counsel for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have conferred with
opposing counsel Leslie W. Dipple regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to ascertain whether
she is opposed to the Motion. On September 16th, 2008 Dominic Audino Spoke to Leslie W.
Dipple, who indicated Defendant is opposed to the Motion.
i,. .• ~. ~-,- I ...
DOMINIC AUDINO
- PAGE 12-
The Law Offices of Dorninic Audino
ARBORETUM PLAZAONE
9442 N. CAPITALOFTEXASHWY, SUITE500
AUSTIN,TEXAS78759
Voice 512-251-5004 Facsimile 512-252-2850
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
We are sending you \ 3letter size pages (including this cover page). Should you have any
problems with the reception of the following pages, please call (512) 251-5004.
To: Anthony 1. Nelson/Leslie W. Dipple
Company: Travis County Attorney's Office
Fax No: (512) 854-4808
From: Dominic Audino
Re: Heather Johnson v. Travis County Auditor's Office
Date September 16, 2008
1. ~Enclosed please find the following document(s):
__ For Filing
2. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $ _
3. __ Please prepare citation and __ Return this to my office in the SASE provided
Forward to: -----------------
4. We are notifying opposing counsel by copy of this letter.
5. Please file stamp the attached copy/document and return it in the SASE provided.
6. Please present for Judge 's Signature.
7. Other:
HP OfficeJet G Series G85 Fax-History Report for
Personal Printer/Fax/CopierlScanner Dominic Audino
5122522850
Sep 16 2008 10: 17am
Last Fax
Date Iim.e Identi ficati on Duration Pages ~
Sep 16 10: 12am Sent 8544808 5:03 13 OK
Result:
OK - black and white fax
Okay color - color fax
AUSTIN DIVISION
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. A:08-CA-643-SS
§
TRA VIS COUNTY AND SUSAN §
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES §
Defendants. §
ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND
BE IT REMEMBERED On the _day of , 2008, the Court reviewed the file in
the above-referenced case, Specifically Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and Brief in Support [# ]
and Defendant's Response thereto[# ]. Plaintiff Heather Johnson on July 24, 2008, filed a
Whistleblower action in Travis County's 200th District Court with claims for retaliation under.
•
,
I
Tex. Gov't. Code §554.001 and constitutional violations under the First .and Fourteenth'
r:-
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant Travis County and
"- ",f,{ ...r
~ ." I"
i
Susan Spataro in her individual and official capacities received notice of the suit, and on August t •
\ "
27, 2008, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal based on 28 U.S.C. § 144l(a) and claiming
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1446. On September 4, 2008, Defendants ,."
answered the lawsuit. Defendants were officially served with process after answering in the suit.:
On September 16, 2008, Johnson filed her Motion for Remand and Brief in Support [# ],
.....
requesting that the court order this entire cause to be remanded back to the 200th Judicial D~strict \.
Court of Travis County, Texas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) on the .grounds that Johnson's
- .~.
'.
.' . J 'I. "
./
r
. I
state and federal claims are separate and independent; that the state Whistleblow~r claimadses'~ .
, ,
OROER ON MOTION TO REMAND -PAGEI-
I
... •
\
under the Texas Government Code and expressly grants jurisdiction in state district court; that
the predominant Whistleblower claim requires interpretation of state statutes and presents a novel
issue of state law; and that the Whistleblower claim greatly impacts Travis County. Johnson also
sought remand on the grounds that Johnson's collateral constitutional claims share concurrent
jurisdiction with state courts. Johnson, sought to remand the entire case contending that doing so
would further the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants. Johnson
also requested that she be allowed such writs and processes as may be necessary to expedite this
Court's order.
After reviewing the file in the above-styled cause, court finds that Johnson's state and
federal claims are separate and independent; that the state Whistleblower claim arises under the
Texas Government Code and expressly grants jurisdiction in state district court; that the
predominant Whistleblower claim requires interpretation of state statutes and presents a novel
issue of state law; and that the Whistleblower claim greatly impacts Travis County. The court
also finds that Johnson's collateral constitutional claims share concurrent jurisdiction with state
courts and the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants are served
by remanding the entire cause.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Remand is GRANTED. The above-styled
case is hereby REMANDED to the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of
this Order of Remand to the Clerk of the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.
See 28.U.S.C. § 1447(c).
ORDER ON MOTION TO RUlAND - PAGE 2-

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other motions pending in the above-styled case are
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
SIGNED on ,2008.
JUDGE SAM SPARKS
ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND -PAGE3-

Case 1:08-cv-00643-SS Document 7 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 6

t, AUSTIN DIVISION
§
(
HEA:IJIER JOHNSON, §
''" '. Plaintiff, §
§
v. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
'SPATARO IN HER INDIVIDUAL §
AND 'OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, §
.. Defendants. §
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
COME NOW Defendants Travis County and Susan Spataro ("Defendants"), by
and through their attorney of record and file this Response to Plaintiffs Motion to
Remand. Defendants offer the following in support:
I. INTRODUCTION
Following her termination from Travis County, Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging
- ~-
violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to. _
the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Defendants removed the cause of
action to federal court because Plaintiff alleged causes of action "arising under. the -'
Constitution." 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Plaintiff now moves the Court to remand her cause
of action under 28 U.S.C. §1441(c) which allows a federal court, in its discretion, to
"remand all matters in which state law predominates.": In support, Plaintiff argues the
state law Whistleblower claim is a novel and complex issue and predominates over the
federal cause of action.
I Moreover, it is also relevant that Plaintiff currently has a Charge of Discrimination pending with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging she was terminated in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
DEFENDANTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
190041-1
PAGE I OF 5
II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Plaintiff's State Law Claims Are Not "Separate and Independent" from the
Federal Cause of Action.
The Court should deny the motion to remand because the state law claim does not
th
predominate. In Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, 97 F. 3d 100 (5 Cir. 1996), the Fifth
Circuit held state law predominates where the claims are "separate and independent"
from the federal cause of action. Id., at 104. Plaintiff argues her Whistleblower claim is
separate and independent from her Fourteenth Amendment claim of deprivation of post-
termination due process because it relies on a different set of facts. Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand, pg. 3-5. However, Plaintiff has also alleged she was terminated in retaliation
for exercising her right to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The evidence relevant to that claim is not separate and independent from
her claim of retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act. The underlying premise of
Plaintiffs cause of action is that she was wrongfully terminated from Travis County.
For remand to be proper, the claim remanded must be (1) a separate and
independent claim or cause of action; (2) joined with a federal question; (3) otherwise
nonremovable; and (4) a matter in which state law predominates. Smith v. Amedisys Inc.,
298 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor
Co., 145 F.3d 320,327 (5th Cir. 1998». In American Fire & Casualty Co v. Finn, 341
U.S. 6, 12, 71 S. Ct. 534 (1951), the Supreme Court explained that "[t]he addition of the
word 'independent' gives emphasis to congressional intention to require more complete
disassociation between the federally cognizable proceedings and those cognizable only in
state courts before allowing removal." The Finn court held that "where there is a single
wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of
190041-1 PAGF20F 5
transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under
§1441(c)." Finn, 341 U.S. 614. Relying on Finn, the Fifth Circuit has held that "a claim
is not independent if it involves substantially the same facts." Smith, 298 F.3d at 440
(quoting Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 F.3d 100, 104 (5th Cir. 1996». A
single wrong occurs when: "(1) all of the plaintiff's damages arise from a single incident,
or when (2) all of the plaintiffs claims involve substantially the same facts." Id. (citing
Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 449 (5th Cir. 2002».
Plaintiff's constitutional and state law claims arise from her communication with
other employees of Travis County about what she believed to be an improper accounting
method. Plaintiffs Original Complaint describes both her state and federal claims as
resulting from this communication. Plaintiff's Original Complaint, pgs. 2-5. Indeed,
Count II of Plaintiff's Original Complaint alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments incorporates by reference all of the facts contained in Count I alleging
violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act. Plaintiffs Original Complaint, pg. 13. The
Whistleblower claim and the federal-law claim do not have such a "complete
disassociation between the federally cognizable proceedings and those cognizable only in
state courts" as to be "separate and independent" under 28 V.S.C. § 1441. Finn, 341 U.S.
at 12. Consequently, the events that led to Plaintiffs claims "arise from an interlocked
series of transactions" making remand improper.
B. Severance is Inappropriate Because the State Law Claims Do Not Predominate
In the alternative, Plaintiff asks that the state and federal claims be severed.
Plaintiff s proposed case law is not applicable because the state claims in this case are not
DEFENDANTS TRA VIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLATNTIfF'S MOTION TO REMAND
190041-1
PAGE 3 OF 5
[ Case 1:08-cv-00643-SS Document 7 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 4 of 6
wholly distinct. Rather, they arise from common operative facts, and resulted in similar
injuries and seek similar damages.
Severance and remand of Plaintiffs one state claim is inappropriate because it is
not complex and does not predominate over the federal claims. A court has discretion to
remand when the pendent claims "raise novel or complex issues of state law or which
predominate over federal claims." Jones v. Belhaven College, 334 F.Supp 2d 916, 919
(S.D. Miss. 2004). Plaintiffs Whistleblower claim involves substantially the same facts
as her federal-law claims. In this case the analysis of whether or not Plaintiff was
terminated in retaliation for reporting a violation of law would require this Court to
determine whether there was substantial evidence to show that Plaintiff was terminated
for a non-retaliatory reason. Similarly, Plaintiffs federal law claim alleging retaliatory
discharge :for making the same statements as protected speech under the First
Amendment would involve an analysis of precisely the same facts for which Plaintiff
seeks the same recovery of damages.
Furthermore, as Judge Royal Ferguson commented in Hughes v. City of Schertz,
2007 LEXIS 82110 (W.D. Tex. 2007), the Texas Whistleblower Act is not a novel or
complex state law.' Despite Plaintiff's contention, there are numerous cases where a
federal court has resolved issues relating to the Texas Whistleblower Act. To have the
case tried in separate courts would not further judicial economy. Because Plaintiffs
cause of action centers around the same operative facts alleging wrongful termination, the
Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the one state law claim as well.
2 The Hughes case is attached as Exhibit A for the Court's convenience.
DEFENDA.NTS TRAVIS COUNTY AND SUSAN SPATARO'S RESPONSE TO PLArNTIFF'S MonON TO REMAND
190041-1
PAGE40F5
III. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that the Court
deny the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and place the cause of action for further
proceedings on the Court's routine docket and for all further relief to which they are
justly entitled.
-".-
.~
By:
J.
Tr is County Attorney
State B No. 14885800
LESLIE W. DIPPEL
Attorney for Defendants Travis
County and Susan Spataro
I hereby certify that on the 29th day of September, 2008, I electronically filed the
foregoing Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM'ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: \
Dominic Audino
Arboretum Plaza One
Austin, Texas 78759
AITORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
190041-1 PAGE 5 oF5

Case 1:08-cv~00643-SS Document 7 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 6 of 6

AUSTIN DIVISION
§
HEATHER JOHNSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § A-08-CA-643-SS
§
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, §
Defendants. §
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
The Court, having considered Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, is of the opinion that it is not
meritorious and should be denied.
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motionfor Remand is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED and ENTERED on this __ day of_'--- __ , 2008.
The Honorable Sam Sparks

Presiding Judge
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

190094-1
Case 1:08-cv-00643-SS Document 7-2 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 4
ExhibitL
Page 1
6 of 58 DOCUMENTS
Analysis
As of: Sep 26, 2008
David Hughes, Plaintiff, v. City of Schertz, City of Schertz Fire Department, City
Manager, DON TAYLOR, Individually and in his Official Capacity; CHIEF
ELROY FRIESENHAHN, Individually and in his Offlcial Capacity, Defendants.
No. SA-07-CV-0054-RF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
2007 U.S. Disl. LEXlS 82110
September 27, 2007, Decided

September 27, 2007, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion granted by, BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs Motion to
Dismissed by, in part Hughes v. City of Schertz, 2007 Remand (Docket No.7), filed February 9, 2007, and
u.s.Dist. LEXIS 82 J 4 J (W.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2007) Defendants' Response (Docket No. 10), filed February
16, 2007. The parties appeared before the Court for a
COUNSEL: (* I] For David Hughes, Plaintiff: Jeffrey R. hearing on this matter on September 25, 2007. After due
Davis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Malaise & Davis LLP, San consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs
Antonio, TX; R. Chris Pittard, LEAD ATTORNEY, Motion to Remand should be DENIED.
Davis Law Finn, San Antonio, TX.
Factual and Procedural Background
For City of Schertz, City of Schertz Fire Department,
City Manager Don Taylor, Individually and in His This is a wrongful termination and retaliation (*2]
Official Capacity, Chief Elroy Friesenhan, Individually case brought under both federal and state law. David
and in His Official Capacity, Defendants: Charles Straith Hughes ("Plaintiff') filed suit in state court on December
Frigerio, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, San 19, 2006 and the case was removed to federal court on
Antonio, TX; Hector Xavier Saenz, LEAD ATTORNEY, January 12,2007, based on federal question jurisdiction.
Law Ofcs. OfChas. S Frigerio, San Antonio, TX. Plaintiff claims he was fired after he informed his
superiors he would not carry out his assigned task
JUDGES: ROYAL FURGESON, UNITED STATES because it was against the law. Plaintiff contends he
DISTRICT JUDGE. contacted a state agency to verify the illegality of the
task. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendants (I) violated
OPINION BY: ROYAL FURGESON his First Amendment right to free speech under 42 U.S.C
§ 1983; (2) harmed his personal reputation under 42
OPINION US.C § 1983; (3) conspired to deprive him of his civil
rights under 42 u.s.e § /985(3); and (4) fired him in
violation of the Texas Whistleblower's Act. PI's Original
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO Complaint at 2-3.
REMAND
Page 2
2007 u.s. Dist. LEXIS 82110, *2
Plaintiff was the training officer for the City of civil action of which the district courts have original
Schertz Fire Department and claims he was directed to jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the
develop a training program to train emergency medical Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be
technicians (ltEMT") fire suppression techniques. Id. at 3. removable without regard to the citizenship or residence
The proposed program would not certify the EMTs as of the parties." 28 US.c. § 1441(b)(2002). A case arises
firefighters and would not provide the requisite traming "under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United
for certification. Id. (Specifically, the program would States" for purposes of removal jurisdiction if the
train EMTs how to attack and [*3) suppress a vehicle adjudication [*5] of the plaintiffs claim for relief
fire if they came across one in a volunteer jurisdiction depends on the application of any of the enumerated
and no fire crews were around.) PI's Response to Deft sources of federal law. See e.g., Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Taylor and Friesenhahn's Mot. to Dismiss, Exh I at I. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 u.s. 804, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L.
Plaintiff informed Defendants Taylor (City Manager), Ed. 2d 650, (1986); Smith v. Winter, 717 F.2d 191 (5th
_.__ Friesenhan (Fire Chief), and non-named Defendant Cir. 1983). The right created by the Constitution, treaty,
Dudley Wait (Assistant City Manager) that this type of or federal law that permits removal into federal court
training would be a violation of Texas law. Id. Plaintiff must be an essential element of the plaintiffs properly
claims he stressed his concern several times, but to no pleaded claim for relief. See, e.g., Merrell Dow Pharm.,
avail and was directed to implement the program. Jd. at Inc. v. Thompson, 478 u.s. 804, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L.
3-4. Plaintiff alleges he informed defendants he was Ed. 2d 650 (1986); Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53 F3d.
concerned about the program as a citizen and taxpayer 690 (5th Cir. 1995). If the right to remove is doubtful,
because he felt the program was unsafe and a waste of remand is appropriate. Because the decision to remand is
money. PI's Response to Deft Taylor and Friesenhahn's not appealable however, courts should be cautious not to
Mot. to Dismiss, Exh A at 1. Defendants allegedly erroneously deprive a removing defendant of the right to
retorted that Plaintiff had no rights as a private citizen afederal forum. Ruffin v. Armco Steel Corp., 959 F.Supp.
because Plaintiff works for the city. Id. 770, 772 (1997).
A few days after Plaintiff was directed to create this Analysis

training program Plaintiff sent an e-rnail to the
Commission. PI's Original Complaint, at 3. Plaintiff Because the federal and state law claims are not
verified with the Commission that this type of proposed separate and independent causes of action remand is not
program is illegal.' Id., Exh A at I. Plaintiff attaches an proper. The state claims do not predominate over the
e-rnail from the Commission that appears [*4] to state federal claims and the Texas Whistleblower Act is not a
the proposed program would be illegal. Id. novel or complex state law. Furthermore, the claims
should not be severed because they are not wholly
STANDARD OF REVIEW distinct, revolve around the same operative fact, and
resulted [*6] and similar injuries and seek similar
On a motion to remand, the Court must determine damages.
whether the case was properly removed to federal court.
In determining whether removal is proper, the Court Plaintiffs Motion to Remand instructs the Court to
starts with the fundamental principal that only actions consider (I) whether the state law claims are separate and
that originally could have been filed in federal court can independent causes of action; (2) whether the state law
be removed to federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, claims predominate over the federal claims; and (3)
482 Us. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 whether the Court should sever the state law claims if it
(1987); 28 U.S.c. § 1441(a)-(b) (2002). The party chooses not to remand.
seeking to remove a case to federal court generally bears
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Willy v. In determining whether a state-law claim is separate
Coastal Corp., 855 rz« J 160, J 164 (5th Cir. 1988), aff'd and independent from a federal claim, the question is
on other grounds, 503 US. 131, /12 S. Ct. 1076, 11 7 L. whether there is "a single wrong to [the] plaintiff, for
Ed. 2d 280 (1992). which relief is sought, arising from an interlocking series
of transactions." Smith v. Estate of Wagner, 2006 Us.
The basic statutory provision providing for removal Dist. LEXIS 68617, 2006 WL 2729282, *3 (S.D. Tex.
based on federal question jurisdiction states that "[a]ny 2006). A single wrong occurs when: "(1) all of the
Page 3
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82110, *6
plaintiff's damages arise from a single incident, or when In the alternative, Plaintiff asks that the state and
(2) all of the plaintiff's claims involve substantially the federal claims be severed. Plaintiff's proposed case law is
same facts." id. (citing Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d not applicable because the state claims in this case are not
434, 449 (5th Cir. 2002)). wholly distinct, arise from common operative facts, and
resulted in similar injuries and seek similar damages. The
Plaintiff's constitutional and state law claims result Court is of the opinion the claims should not be severed
from his communication with the Texas Commission of as they arise from common operative facts.
Fire Protection and his voicing concern to Defendants.
Plaintiff's Original Complaint describes both his state and Conclusion
federal claims resulting from this communication.
Plaintiff's 42 us.c § 1985(3) [*7] conspiracy claims For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the opinion
arose when Defendants allegedly met, discussed, and that all maters in this case [* 8] arise out of the same
decided to terminate the Plaintiff for reporting the operative facts and jurisdiction is proper in federal court.
violations. The Court finds that the events that led to the Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Docket No.
filing of Plaintiff's claims arise from an interlocking .7) should be DENIED.
series of transactions.
It is so ORDERED.
Furthermore, Plaintiff's state claims are not complex
Signed this 27th day of September, 2007.
and do not predominate over the federal claims. A court
has discretion to remand when the pendent claims "raise
Royal Furgeson
novel or complex issues of state law or which
predominate over federal claims." Jones v. Be/haven ROYAL FURGESON
College, 334 FiSupp 2d 916, 919 (S.D. Miss. 2004).
Despite Plaintiff's contention, there are numerous cases UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
where a federal court has resolved issues relating to the
Texas Whistleblower's Act.
CM/ECrLIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd
u.s. District Court [LIVE]

Western District of Texas (Austin)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-00643-SS
Johnson v. Travis County et al Date Filed: 08/27/2008

Assigned to: Judge Sam Sparks Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Case in other court: 200th Judicial District of Travis County, D-l- Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
GN -08-002659 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Flaintiff
Heather Johnson represented by Dominic C. Audino
Attorney at Law
Arboretum Plaza One
9442 Capital of Texas Hwy.
Suite 500
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 251-5004
Fax: 512/525-2850
Email: dominicaudino@yahoo.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
.ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Travis County represented by Anthony J. Nelson
3 14 West 11th Street
Room 420
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 854-4801
Fax: 512/854-4808
Email: tony.nelson@co.travis.tx.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie W. Dippel
P.O. Box 1748
314 W. 11th Street
Room 420
Austin, TX 78767
(512) 854-9513
Fax: 512/854-4808
Email: leslie.dippel@co.travis.tx.us
LEAD ATTORNEY
https:llecf.txwd,uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?l 09130261461654-L 567 0-1 10/3/2008

.
CMlECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd
Susan Spataro represented by Anthony J. Nelson

In Her Individual and Official Capacity (See above for address)
LEADAITORNEY
Leslie W. Dippel
(See above for address)
LEADAITORNEY
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/27/2008 1 Defendants' NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $350 receipt number 00429017), filed by
Travis County, Susan Spataro. (Attachments: # I Exhibit - County Register of Actions, # 2
Exhibit - Plaintiffs Original Petition filed in State Court, # 3 Exhibits - Defendants' Notice of
Removal filed in Federal Court, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet / Supplemental / Receipt)(klw, )
(Entered: 08/27/2008)
08/27/2008 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Plaintiff contained in Original Complaint filed in State Court.
(klw, ) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
08/27/2008 2 ORDER for Removing Party to supplement the record with State Court filings. Signed by Judge
Sam Sparks. (klw, ) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
09/04/2008 "
.J ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Travis County, Susan Spataro. (mm5)
(Entered: 09/04/2008)
09/0S/2008 1: Order for Proposed Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the
Court within sixty (60) days after the appearance of any defendant. Proposed Scheduling Order
due by 11/3/2008. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (mmS) (Entered: 09/0S/2008)
09/25/2008 5 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Heather Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)
(mmS) (Entered: 09/2SI2008)
09/29/2008 {5 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Travis County, Susan Spataro, re S MOTION to Remand to
State Court filed by Plaintiff Heather Johnson Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Motion to
Remand (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Nelson, Anthony) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
09/29/2008 7 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Travis County, Susan Spataro, re 5 MOTION to Remand to
State Court filed by Plaintiff Heather Johnson CORRECTED Defendants' Response to
Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Nelson, Anthony) (Entered:
09/29/2008)
---------------
I PACER Service Center I
I Transaction Receipt I
I 10103/200809:03:51 I
IPACER Login: IIda2482 IIClient Code: IIJohnson I
IOescription: IIDocket Report IISearch Criteria: 111:08-cv-00643-SS 1
IBiIlable Pages: 112 IICost: 110.16 1
https:/lecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?1 09130261461654-L_567 _0-1 10/3/2008

https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlshow _temp.pl?file=merged _0.669260732454376 _ 386928-12230427... 10/312008

Petition

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Petition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

'; ,l.

DAVID A. ESCAMILLA LITIGATION DIVISION

314 W. 11TH, STREET .. ,('-, ,~. ANTHONY J. NELSON

Cause.No. D-1-GN-08-002659; Heather Johnson v; Travis County

Dear Mr. Putnicki:

1. Notice of Removal (with all.pleadings filed in State District Court attached); f

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Heather Johnson Travis County, Texas and Susan Spataro in

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an t'X't in One Box Onlv)

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to District

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF.RECORD

• FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Cause No. D-1-GN-08-002659

Heather Johnson, § In the District Court

2. Was jury demand made in State Court? Yes [Xj No []

Heather Johnson, Plaintiff July 24, 2008

STATE COURT INFORMATION:

Party Attorney of Record

Travis County and Anthony J. Nelson

TXWD - Supplement to JS 44 (Rev. 10/2004)

COUNTERCLAIMS, CROSS-CLAIMS, and/or THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS:

August 27, 2007

Travis County and Susan Spataro, Defendants

TXWD - Supplement to JS 44 (Rev. 10/2004)

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Defendants offer the following:

1. Plaintiff, Heather Johnson, filed a cause of action entitled Heather Johnson v.

District Court of Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-I-GN-08-002659.

2. Defendants received Plaintiffs First Petition on July 31, 2008.

action is based. 28 U.S.c. § 1446(b).

employment was terminated on June 4, 2008.

Grounds for Removal

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As a result, Cause No. GN-08-002659 is an action

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1446(a), Defendants file herewith copies of all process,

pleadings, and orders served upon Defendants in this case:

a. Travis County Docket Sheet;

b. Plaintiffs First Petition;

c. Notice of Removal to Federal Court.

8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal (exclusive of

9. Plaintiff has demanded a jury in the state court action.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, respectfully pray that this

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Via Certified Mail RJRJR#70040750000202277319

0-1-GN-08-002659 JOHNSON VS TRAVIS COUNTY

DATE PARTY EVENT RECEIPT # AMOUNT

07-24-2008 PL 1 ASM:GN CIVIL PETITION $237.00

07-24-2008 PL 1 ASM:CITATION ISSUE $8.00

07-24-2008 PL 1 ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

07-24-2008 NEW:ORIGINAL PETITION/APPL

07-24-2008 PL 1 PMT:GN CIVIL PETITION G 24947 $237.00

07-24-2008 PL 1 PMT:CITATION ISSUE G 24947 $8.00

Capacity, Defendants § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

the Court and jury as follows:

Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 1 of 7

11th St., Grainger Bldg., Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78701.

4. Defendant, Susan Spataro, ("Spataro") is an individual who is a citizen of Texas and

Bldg., Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78701.

III. JURISDICTION and VENUE