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)

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”).