United States District Court,

E.D. New York.

Sherene Walker, Plaintiff,

v.

Charles Rodgers, Mast Trucking Inc. and KM Trucking Inc., Defendants.

Case No. 1:15 CV 07376 (PKC) (MDG)

|

Signed 01/19/2016

 

 

MEMORANDUM & OPINION

Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge.

*1 On December 29, 2015, Defendants Charles Rodgers (“Rodgers”), Mast Trucking Inc. (“Mast Trucking”), and KM Trucking Inc. (“KM Trucking”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal (“Notice”) removing this action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County to this Court. (Dkt. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, this case is sua sponte REMANDED to State court.

 

 

1. BACKGROUND

The Complaint in this matter, originally filed in State court, alleges that Rodgers was an employee of Mast Trucking and KM Trucking. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-35.)1 At 5:45 a.m. on March 20, 2015, in the course of his employment, Rodgers allegedly operated a vehicle owned by Mast Trucking and KM Trucking and struck the motor vehicle driven by Plaintiff Sherene Walker (“Plaintiff”), resulting in serious injuries to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-41, 43-44)

 

Defendants invoke diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The Notice alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of New York while Defendants are all citizens of Ohio. (Notice ¶ 3.) Regarding the amount in controversy, the Notice alleges that Plaintiff demands “an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts,” and that “[a]ccordingly, the amount in controversy in this suit is in excess of $75,000.” (Notice ¶ 2.) The Complaint (attached to the Notice) alleges only that Plaintiff’s “vehicle was damaged in the sum of … $5,000.00,” (Compl. ¶ 52) and that Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that “exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.” (Compl. ¶ 50). At this point, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for remand.

 

 

1. DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, the Court first must address whether it may remand this case to State court sua sponte, absent a motion from Plaintiff. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), states in pertinent part: “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Id. The Second Circuit has construed this statute as authorizing a district court, at any time, to remand a case sua sponte upon a finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 131, 133?34 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) and Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2001)).

 

Here, as in all cases removed to the federal courts, the removing party has the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 273?74 (2d Cir. 1994). “[I]f the jurisdictional amount is not clearly alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant’s notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, federal courts lack diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removing the plaintiff’s action from state court.” Id. The Second Circuit has cautioned district courts to “construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability.” In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 06 MD 1789, 2013 WL 603187, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2013) (quoting Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enters., Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1045?46 (2d Cir. 1991)).

 

*2 In this case, Defendants fail to meet their burden to show that the $75,000 jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction has been satisfied, as they assert only that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000, (Notice ¶ 2), without providing any factual allegations to support this amount. Further, the Complaint only alleges damages to Plaintiff’s vehicle in the amount of $5,000, (Compl. ¶ 52), and damages to Plaintiff herself in the amount of $5,000. (Compl. ¶ 53.) The Complaint’s mention of “lower courts” is a reference to the lower civil courts of New York, which may not entertain actions seeking to recover more than $25,000, and not a reference to the federal district courts. See Woodley v. Massachusetts Mut., 08 CV 0949, 2008 WL 2191767, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2008) (remanding the case due to defendant’s failure to satisfy jurisdictional amount where defendant relied solely on an ad damnum clause in plaintiff’s complaint stating that plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of the “monetary jurisdiction of all lower [c]ourts”) (citing S.S.I.G. Realty, Inc. v. Bologna Holding Corp., 624 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)); see id. at *2 n.3 (collecting cases). Furthermore, with the exception of the allegation that Plaintiff sustained “serious and sever[e] personal injuries[,]” (Compl. ¶ 46), neither the Complaint nor the Notice contains any further information specifying the exact nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, or the treatment she has received, that would permit this Court to draw a reasonable inference that the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied.2 Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ allegations in the Notice have failed to clearly allege that the action meets the threshold amount in controversy required to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction and are insufficient to support the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, remand to State court is proper. See Woodley, 2008 WL 2191767, at *2.

 

 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 14029/15, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

All Citations

Slip Copy, 2016 WL 236223

 

 

Footnotes

1

Citations to “ECF” refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s electronic docketing system and not the document’s internal pagination.

2

While Paragraph 46 of the Complaint states that Plaintiff was “hospitalized and received medical care and treatment” because she “sustained serious and severe personal injuries, some or all of which are permanent in nature” and that she “has incurred and will continue to incur costs and expenses for medical and hospital care and treatment, therapy and rehabilitation, all in an effort to be cured of said injuries and the resulting disability,” these generalized allegations are insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, especially given that the claimed damage to the vehicle was relatively low, i.e., $5,000.

 

 

MATRIX CHEMICAL, LLC v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.

 

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-779

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SHERMAN DIVISION

 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6940

 

 

January 21, 2016, Decided

January 21, 2016, Filed

 

 

COUNSEL:  [*1] For Matrix Chemical, LLC, Plaintiff: Steven Eugene Clark, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clark Firm PLLC, Dallas, TX.

 

For FedEx Freight, Inc., Defendant: Mary Abbott Martin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Peckham PLLC, Houston, TX; Charles Henry Peckham, Charles Peckham-Attorney at Law, Houston, TX.

 

JUDGES: AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

 

OPINION BY: AMOS L. MAZZANT

 

OPINION

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Action to State Court (Dkt. #5). Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.

 

BACKGROUND

On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff Matrix Chemical, LLC filed its original petition in the County Court of Law No. 2 of Collin County, Texas, alleging claims of conversion and seeking a declaratory judgment (Dkt. #1-5). On November 4, 2015, Defendant FedEx Freight, Inc. (“FedEx”) filed its answer, and asserted a defense under 49 U.S.C. § 14706 (the “Carmack Amendment”) (Dkt. #1-6). On November 6, 2015, FedEx filed its Notice of Removal, asserting federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 49 U.S.C. § 14706 (Dkt. #1).

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Remand Action to State Court (Dkt. #5). On December 17, 2015, FedEx filed its response (Dkt. #7). On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed its reply [*2]  (Dkt. #8).

 

LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) permits removal of “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction[.]” Under this statute, “[a] defendant may remove a state court action to federal court only if the action could have originally been filed in the federal court.” Aaron v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 876 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 391-92, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987); 28 U.S.C. § 1441). Removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed, however, because it “implicates important federalism concerns.” Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919, 922 (5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “any doubts concerning removal must be resolved against removal and in favor of remanding the case back to state court.” Cross v. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co., 810 F. Supp. 748, 750 (N.D. Tex. 1992). The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal. Frank, 128 F.3d at 921-22.

A state court lawsuit is removable to federal court if it includes a claim arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1331. Whether federal question jurisdiction exists in a removal action is based on the allegations in a plaintiff’s “well -pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction depends on whether “there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.” Baron v. Strassner, 7 F. Supp. 2d 871, 873 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (citation omitted). “It is well settled that the party who brings the suit is the master of [*3]  what law he will rely upon.” Id.

Where potential remedies exist under both state and federal law, a plaintiff may choose to proceed only under state law and avoid federal court jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392; Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995). “Where, however, the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint establishes that federal law creates the cause of action, the case ‘arises under’ federal law, conferring jurisdiction on the federal courts.” Payton v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, No. 3:08-CV-1967-G, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7001, 2009 WL 235196, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2009). “Once the court has proper removal jurisdiction over a federal claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims,…even if it dismisses or otherwise disposes of the federal claim or claims.” Giles v. NYLCare HealthPlans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367).

In this case, removal was not based upon diversity of citizenship, but was based upon a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, or the Carmack Amendment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce, such as the Carmack Amendment, if the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. Section 1337(a) provides as follows:

 

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, [*4]  That the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

 

 

28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).

 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff raises two arguments in support of their remand motion. First, Plaintiff argues that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337 and 1445(b) (See Dkt. #5). Second, Plaintiff asserts that removal cannot be based upon the preemption of the state law claims by the Carmack Amendment (See Dkt. #5).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), federal question jurisdiction under the Carmack Amendment usually exists for claims “only if the matter in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” However, the amount in controversy requirement does not depend on the amount on the face of the receipt or bill of lading. Simmons v. United Parcel Serv., 924 F. Supp. 65, 67 (W.D. Tex. 1996). “If the shipment generates a controversy exceeding $10,000, the claim satisfies the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement.” Id. (citing Pillsbury Co. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D. Kan. 1982)). Plaintiffs state in their state court petition that FedEx’s invoice to Plaintiff amounts to $12,364.00 (See Dkt. #1-2 at p. 4). Therefore, the Court finds that this satisfies the $10,000 amount in controversy [*5]  requirement of §§ 1337 and 1445.

Plaintiffs next challenge the removal as being improper because it is based on a defense of preemption of their state law claims by the Carmack Amendment. “[T]he Supreme Court has held that a case may not be removed to Federal Court on the basis of a federal defense, including that of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Simmons, 924 F. Supp. at 67 (citing Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 393). However, the Supreme Court also noted that under the “complete pre-emption doctrine,” when an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, any claim purportedly based upon that pre-empted state law is considered a federal claim, and would therefore arise under federal law. Id. Both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have held that the Carmack Amendment preempts all state law claims against a common carrier. Simmons, 924 F. Supp. at 67; see Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314 (1912); Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 6 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 1993) (district court correctly held that the Carmack Amendment preempted plaintiff’s state law claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.); see also Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the “complete pre-emption” doctrine applies, and FedEx’s removal on that basis was proper.

 

CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED [*6]  that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Action to State Court (Dkt. #5) is hereby DENIED.

SIGNED this 21st day of January, 2016.

/s/ Amos L. Mazzant

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE