Arbogast et al v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al

Filing 571

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 532 Motion to Remand to State Court; granting 566 Motion to Amend/Correct 537 Third Party Complaint. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 1/3/2017. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs * * v. * A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants * * CIVIL NO. JKB-14-4049 * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court (ECF No. 532) and Defendant MCIC, Inc.’s motion to amend its third-party complaint against CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) (ECF No. 566). The latter motion is not opposed by CSXT (ECF No. 570) and will be granted.1 The motion to remand will be denied. Plaintiffs’ remand motion was filed prior to the filing of third-party complaints by MCIC and Georgia-Pacific, LLC. As now amended, those complaints invoke claims of contribution under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., and the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. (ECF Nos. 556, 566-2.) Thus, despite the resolution of the claims upon which this case was removed—i.e., claims against certain defendants who could rely upon the “federal officer defense” for federal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)—the case still contains federal claims, and MCIC and Georgia-Pacific have chosen to assert those claims in this federal forum. Consequently, the Court’s jurisdiction is not strictly “supplemental” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as it would be over purely state claims remaining in 1 CSXT does not concede the correctness of MCIC’s third-party claim against CSXT. Also pending, but not yet ripe, is CSXT’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment as to the third-party complaints. (ECF No. 560.) The merits of the third-party complaints are, therefore, still to be decided. the case. If it were so, then the Court could exercise its discretion to remand the case under § 1367(c)(3). Since that is not the case, however, remand will be denied.2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (ECF No. 532) IS DENIED. 2. MCIC, Inc.’s motion to amend its third-party complaint (ECF No. 566) IS GRANTED. 3. The Clerk SHALL DOCKET ECF No. 566-2 as MCIC’s Amended Third-Party Complaint for Contribution. DATED this 3rd day of January, 2017. BY THE COURT: _____________/s/_____________________ James K. Bredar United States District Judge 2 The Court gives no credence to Plaintiffs’ contention that the resolution of claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction results in the loss of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 640 (2009) (“Upon dismissal of the federal claim, the District Court retained its statutory supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”); Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Porsche.Net, 302 F.3d 248, 256 (4th Cir. 2002) (“although federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a case involving only state-law claims in the absence of diversity jurisdiction, a court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over purely state-law claims after resolving a claim that initially gave it subject-matter jurisdiction over the case”).

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?