Hamann v. Hamilton & Spear Painting et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Sever; denying 15 Joinder; denying 17 Joinder. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JAY HAMANN, an individual,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00132-BLW

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON MOTION TO SEVER
AND REMAND

v.
HAMILTON & SPEAR PAINTING, an
Idaho company; NORTHCON, INC., an
Idaho company; WALL 2 WALL
FLOORCOVING, an Idaho company;
STATE OF IDAHO MILITARY
DIVIDION; IDAHO ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD; GOWEN FIELD FIRE AND
CRASH RESCUE; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; and DOES I-X, unknown
parties,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants Wall 2 Wall Flooring (“Wall 2 Wall”), Hamilton & Spear Painting
(“Hamilton”), and Northcon, Inc. (“Northcon”) seek to sever the claims against them by
Plaintiff Jay Hamann, and remand those claims to the Fourth Judicial Court, State of
Idaho, Ada County, on the grounds that the claims arise under Idaho worker’s
compensation law and are accordingly outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. Hamann,
in opposition to this motion, argues while the injury he allegedly suffered occurred within
the scope of his employment, the immediate Defendants are third-parties, not his

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

employer, and his causes of action against them arise independent from Idaho’s worker’s
compensation law. The Court finds the Hamann’s negligence claims do not arise from
Idaho’s worker’s compensation law and accordingly the Motion to Sever and Remand
will be denied.
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2013, Hamann filed a complaint against Hamilton in the District
Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho alleging that he inhaled epoxy
while performing duties in the scope of his employment while on duty at Gowen Field.
Dkt. 1-4. Hamann later amended the complaint to add the remaining defendants. Dkt. 1-6.
According to the complaint, Defendant Hamilton was the sub-tier contractor for a reflooring project at Gowen. Defendant Northcon was the general contractor for the project
and Defendant Wall 2 Wall was the sub-contractor for the project. Id. Defendant William
Mattravers was and is the Fire Chief at Gowen. Id.
On March 19, 2013, the United States filed a notice of removal to this Court. Dkt.
1. According to the notice, William Mattravers, whom Hamann had listed as a defendant,
was acting within the scope of his employment as an employee of the United States when
the alleged incident occurred. Dkt. 1-2. Accordingly, Hamann’s claims were claims
against the United States of America, covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq, and removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). Dkt. 1.
On April 8, 2013, Wall 2 Wall filed a Motion to Sever and Remand on the grounds
that Plaintiff’s claims against it arise under Idaho’s Workers Compensation Law and are

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

thus non-removable. Northcon and Hamilton subsequently filed motions to join Wall 2
Walls’s motion to sever and remand.
LEGAL STANDARD
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C § 1441(a), provides that any civil action brought in
a state court, over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction, may be
removed to federal court. However, any claim that has been made nonremovable by
statute, or that is not within the original or supplement jurisdiction of a district court,
must be severed and remanded to state court. 28 U.S.C § 1441(c).
Civil actions arising under a worker’s compensation law have been made
nonremovable by statute. 28 U.S.C § 1445(c). Therefore, if Hamann’s claims against
Wall 2 Wall, Northcon, and Hamilton arise from the worker’s compensation laws of
Idaho this Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims.
Additionally, a district court has supplemental jurisdiction over all claims which
are closely related to a claim over which that district court has original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1367. All parties appear to agree that the Court does not have original
jurisdiction over Hamann’s claims against Wall 2 Wall, Northcon, or Hamilton, but that
these claims are closely related to Hamann’s claims against the United States, over which
this Court does have original jurisdiction. Therefore, if Hamann’s claims against Wall 2
Wall, Northcon, and Hamilton do not arise out of the worker’s compensation laws of
Idaho, the Court does have jurisdiction over the claims.
ANALYSIS

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Idaho’s worker’s compensation law gives employers immunity from civil actions
brought by an employee, when that employee has been injured in the capacity of his
employment, while providing those injured employees with “sure and certain relief.” I.C.
§ 72-201. Idaho Code § 72-223, however, states, “the right to compensation under this
law shall not be affected by the fact that the injury, occupational disease or death is
caused under circumstance creating in some person other than the employer a legal
liability to pay damages.”
Idaho case law has long recognized the right of an employee to receive worker’s
compensation and separately bring a tort action against a third party who allegedly
contributed to the employee’s injury. See Tucker v. Union Oil Co. of California, 603 P.2d
590, (1979), Lake v. State, 227 P.2d 361 (1951), Runcorn v. Shearer Lumber Products,
Inc., 690 P.2d 324 (1984). In Tucker, the plaintiff/employee suffered an industrial
accident while acting within the scope of his employment. After receiving worker’s
compensation, the plaintiff brought a negligence action against eight non-employer
defendants who allegedly contributed to his injuries. See 603 P.2d 156, 167. Although
the plaintiff received worker’s compensation, he was not barred from suing the thirdparties, and his action against the third-party defendants did not invoke the statute. See id.
Third-party suits, invoking common law causes of action, have also been brought
in federal court. See Peone v. Regulus Stud Millls, Inc. 858 F.2d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 1988).
In Peone, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District of Idaho’s determination that the federal
courts had jurisdiction over a negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against a thirdparty defendant relating to an accident he suffered in the course of his employment. Id.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Although the plaintiff in Peone invoked the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, the
court determined that the claim in federal court was not barred by 28 U.S.C § 1445(c);
that is, the claim was deemed not to have arisen under Idaho’s worker’s compensation
laws. See id.
The Defendants argue that under Baker v. Sullivan, 979 P.2d 619 (Idaho 1999),
“all claims arising out of and sustained during the course of employment” fall under the
worker’s compensation law. Under this proffered reading of the statute, when an
employee goes to work, that employee loses the ability to sue in federal court, regardless
of the claim and regardless of the defendant. However, that view has not been adopted by
this Court, as indicated by the many tort cases brought before this Court, in which the
plaintiff’s injuries were incurred while working. See, e.g. Schwenk v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
2009 WL 262126 (Idaho 2009). In these cases the plaintiff’s employer was immune from
civil litigation – in this or any other court, but the third-parties were not immune and the
actions were therefore properly brought in federal court.
Hamann is similarly situated to the plaintiff in Peone. See 858 F.2d at 551.
Hamann is suing the third-party Defendants on a theory of negligence. Hamann’s
complaint did not invoke Idaho’s worker’s compensation laws and Hamann accurately
points out that I.C. § 72-223 only acknowledges that third-party liability exists, and is not
the source of the plaintiff’s cause of action against third-parties. Dkt. 1-4, and 1-6; Dkt.
18. Therefore, the Court finds that Hamann’s claims against Defendants Wall 2 Wall,
Northcon, and Hamilton do not arise from Idaho’s worker’s compensation laws.
Therefore, they were properly removed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant Wall 2 Wall Flooring having filed a Motion to Sever and
Remand (Dkt. 11), Defendant Hamilton & Spear Painting’s joinder in the
motion (Dkt 15), and Defendant Northcon, Inc.’s joinder in the motion
(Dkt. 17), are DENIED.

DATED: June 28, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6