Leah Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Board of Education
Leah Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Board of Education
Leah Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Board of Education
Exhibit A
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 9
LEAH RODEMAKER,
Plaintiffs,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
The City of Valdosta Board of Education, or, in the alternative, Valdosta City School
District, Warren Lee, Liz Shumpard, Tyra Howard, Debra Bell, and Kelisa Brown, the
Defendants in this civil action, hereby file this Notice of Removal under the authority of 28
1.
The civil action being removed was initiated in the Superior Court of Lowndes County,
Georgia, on March 20, 2020 and was there styled and numbered: Leah Rodemaker, Plaintiff, v.
City of Valdosta Board of Education, or, in the alternative, Valdosta City School District,
Warren Lee, Liz Shumphard, Tyra Howard, Debra Bell, and Kelisa Brown, Civil Action No.
2020cv0534 (the “State Court Action”). A copy of the Petition for Temporary and Interlocutory
Page 1 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 9
Injunctive Relief Mrs. Rodemaker filed to initiate the State Court Action is being filed as Exhibit
2.
On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Leah Rodemaker filed and served Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint in the State Court Action. A copy of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint
Leah Rodemaker filed in the State Court Action is being filed as Exhibit 32 to this Notice of
Removal. Defendants received Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on January 29, 2021.
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint was the first paper received by Defendants from
which it could first be ascertained that the case is one which has become removable. This Notice
of Removal is being filed within 30 days of Defendants’ receipt of Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint.
2.
On April 23, 2020, Mr. Rodemaker filed a Complaint for Damages in this Court styled
Alan Rodemaker, Plaintiff, v. Warren Lee, Liz Shumphard, Tyra Howard, Debra Bell, and Kelisa
Brown, in their Individual Capacities, Civil Action No. 7:20-CV-000750HL (the “Federal Court
Action.”) A copy of the Complaint for Damages Mr. Rodemaker filed in the Federal Court
3.
In the Complaint for Damages he filed in the Federal Court Action, Mr. Rodemaker
Page 2 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 9
• his contract as a teacher and the head football coach with the Valdosta Board of
Education (the “Board of Education”) was up for renewal January 2020. (Ex. 33,
p. 3, ¶15),
• the make-up of the Board of Education had recently changed from a majority-
white board to a majority African-American board. Instead of five white
members and four African-American members, the Board of Education became
five African-Americans and four whites (Ex. 33, p. 3, ¶16),
• by a five to four margin, Mr. Rodemaker’s renewal was voted down. All five
African-American board members voted against Mr. Rodemaker’s renewal (Ex.
33, p. 3, ¶18), and
4.
Mr. Rodemaker alleges in the Complaint for Damages that Defendants Lee, Shumpard,
Howard, Bell, and Brown each intentionally discriminated again him on the basis of race in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 when they allegedly voted not to renew Mr. Rodemaker’s contract.
(Ex. 33, pp. 4-5, ¶ 23) Mr. Rodemaker contends that he was injured by Defendants Lee,
Shumpard, Howard, Bell, and Brown’s violations of §1981 (Ex. 33, p. 6, ¶¶’s 30-34) and Mr.
Rodemaker seeks to recover for his injuries under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Ex. 33, p. 4).
5.
On January 29, 2021, Mrs. Rodemaker filed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint in the
State Court Action. A copy of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint Mrs. Rodemaker filed in
the State Court Action is being filed as Exhibit 32 to this Notice of Removal.
Page 3 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 4 of 9
6.
Like the allegations Mr. Rodemaker previously made in the Federal Court Action, Mrs.
Rodemaker alleged the following in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint she filed in the State
Court Action:
• Mr. Rodemaker’s contract as a teacher and the head football coach with the
Valdosta Board of Education (the “Board of Education”) was up for renewal in
January 2020. (Ex. 32, p. 2, ¶ 8),
• the make-up of the Board of Education had recently changed from a majority-
white board to a majority African-American board. Instead of five white
members and four African-American members, the Board of Education became
five African-Americans and four whites (Ex. 32, p. 2, ¶ 9),
• by a five to four margin, Mr. Rodemaker’s renewal was voted down. All five
African-American board members voted against Mr. Rodemaker’s renewal (Ex.
32, p. 3, ¶ 13), and
• Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard, Bell, and Brown’s decisions not to renew
Mr. Rodemaker as the Head Varsity Football Coach were undertaken with an
intent to discriminate on the basis of his race (Ex. 32, pp. 4-5, ¶¶’s 20-24).
7.
Mrs. Rodemaker alleged in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint that Mr. Rodemaker
sustained injuries because of the decisions of Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard, Bell, and
Brown to nonrenew Mr. Rodemaker’s contract as Valdosta High School’s Head Varsity Football
Coach (Ex. 32, p. 5, ¶ 25) Mrs. Rodemaker further alleges that those decisions and the injuries
Mr. Rodemaker sustained as a result of those decisions, have caused her to lose her husband’s
companionship, society, and comfort. (Ex. 32, p. 5, ¶ 26). Mrs. Rodemaker therefore contends
that she is entitled to damages from Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard, Bell, and Brown for
Page 4 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 5 of 9
8.
Under Georgia law, a claim for loss of consortium by one spouse is derivative of and
dependent upon the existence of a viable claim by the other spouse. Goodman v. Kimbrough,
718 F.3d 1325, 1336 (11th Cir. 2012). “One spouse’s claim for the loss of the other spouse’s
consortium derives from the right of the other spouse to recover for [his] injuries.” Canberg v.
City of Toccoa, 255 Ga. App. 890, 892 (2002). Thus, where summary judgment is granted on
the primary claim, it is also proper on the spouse’s loss of consortium claim. Behforouz v. Vakil,
9.
consortium claim derives from Mr. Rodemaker’s claim that Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard,
Bell, and Brown allegedly intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race when they
voted to nonrenew Mr. Rodemaker’s coaching contract. Mr. Rodemaker’s claim arises under
the laws of the United States because, as shown by the Complaint for Damages he filed in the
Federal Court Action, Mr. Rodemaker contends that Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard, Bell,
and Brown violated 42 U.S.C. §1981 when they voted to nonrenew Mr. Rodemaker’s contract,
and he seeks to recover under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for his injuries resulting from alleged violation.
10.
Because Mr. Rodemaker’s claim for the alleged conduct of Defendants Lee, Shumpard,
Howard, Bell, and Brown arises under the laws of the United States, Mrs. Rodemaker’s claim for
loss of consortium does too. Again, Mrs. Rodemaker’s loss of consortium claim is derivative of
Mr. Rodemaker’s claim. Mrs. Rodemaker alleges that the loss of her husband’s consortium was
Page 5 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 6 of 9
caused by the injuries Mr. Rodemaker sustained as a result of the same alleged conduct of
Defendants Lee, Shumpard, Howard, Bell, and Brown that Mr. Rodemaker says violated 42
U.S.C. §1981, and Mr. Rodemaker seeks to recover under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for those alleged
violations. Because Mr. Rodemaker’s claim arises under the laws of the United States and
because Mrs. Rodemaker’s claim is derivative of and dependent upon Mr. Rodemaker’s claim,
Mrs. Rodemaker’s derivative claim for loss of consortium also arises under the laws of the
United States.
11.
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in
a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1331. This civil action arises
under the laws of the United States. This action is pending in Superior Court of Lowndes
County, Georgia, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
12.
This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1441
because Mrs. Rodemaker has alleged a claim arising under the laws of the United States.
Page 6 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 7 of 9
13.
This action is removable under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and this Notice of Removal is timely
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) as the case stated in the initial pleading was not
removable and this Notice of Removal is being filed within 30 days after receipt by the
Defendants of an amended pleading (Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint) from which it could
first be ascertained that the case is one which has become removable.
14.
All of the Defendants are represented by one of the undersigned attorneys and have
15.
A copy of all process, pleadings, and order served upon Defendants in the State Court
16.
Promptly after the filing of this Notice of Removal, Defendants will give written notice
thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Superior
Court of Lowndes County, Georgia, which shall effect the removal and the Superior Court of
Lowndes County, Georgia shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.
Page 7 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 8 of 9
/s/Thomas W. Joyce
THOMAS W. JOYCE
Georgia Bar No. 405527
BRANDON A. OREN
Georgia Bar No. 554277
RENEE S. RAINEY
Georgia Bar No. 479998
Attorneys for Defendants City of Valdosta
Board of Education, or in the Alternative,
Valdosta City School District, Liz
Shumpard, Tyra Howard, and
Debra Bell
/s/Jerry A. Lumley
Jerry A. Lumley
Georgia Bar No. 460866
Attorney for Defendants
Kelisa Brown and Warren Lee
Lumley & Harper, LLC
Page 8 of 9
Case 7:21-cv-00020-HL Document 1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on February 22, 2021, I served the foregoing Notice of Removal
upon all parties in this action by sending it to the following registered users of the court’s
electronic-filing system by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing system: Saleem David
Dennis, John Douglas Holt, Samuel L. Mikell, Brent J. Savage, Thomas W. Joyce, Brandon A.
/s/Jerry A. Lumley
Jerry A. Lumley
Georgia Bar No. 460866
Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
Kelisa Brown and Warren Lee
Page 9 of 9