BRUDNAK et al v. A.A. MOVING AND STORAGE, INC. et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM/ORDER that this case is remanded to NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT, BERGEN COUNTY. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 8/14/15. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSE

SUSAN BRUDNAK and
SCOTT BRUDNAK,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
OF REMAND

V.

A.A. MOVING AND STORAGE, INC.,
DAVID SKATES, JOHN DOE and ABC
CORPORATION,

Civ. No. 14-cv-6964 (WHW)(CLW)

Defendants.

Walls, Senior District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on its Order to Show Cause of July 21, 2015, ECF
No. 16. The order instructed the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded to
New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF Nos.
17-18.
Defendants removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction, citing
the Carmack Amendment. ECF No. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331). Defendants moved to dismiss

the complaint’s common law causes of action arising from damage to shipped goods, arguing
that the Carmack Amendment is the exclusive remedy for such damages. ECF No. 3. The Court
granted the motion in part, dismissing the claims related to the shipped goods but allowing the
claims of damage to housing fixtures, which are not covered under the Carmack Amendment.
See Court’s Op. on Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 12. The Court also granted Plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint within 90 days. Id. Plaintiffs did not amend the complaint. Plaintiffs now
assert that, in the absence of pending claims arising under federal law, the Court lacks subject

1

CLOSE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 15. In response, the Court directed the parties to show cause why
the case should not be remanded. ECF No. 16.
“The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that at all stages of the
litigation the case is properly before the federal court.” Samuel-Bassett v. K[A Motors Am., Inc.,
357 f.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 2$ U.S.C.

§ 1447(c).

Defendants do not demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action. Defendants concede that they do not seek to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Def.’s Br. 2, ECF No. 17. Instead, they continue to invoke federal question jurisdiction, arising
under the Carmack Amendment. Id. Defendants offer: “[i]f Plaintiffs will dismiss all claims
related to the cargo claims and amend the Complaint to separately allege the property damage to
the house, i.e. floors, walls, and door frames, then Defendants will not oppose the remand to state
court.” Def.’s Br. 2-3, ECF No. 17. In fact, the common law counts relating to the damaged
goods are no longer pending—the Court already dismissed them. See Court’s Op. The only
pending causes of action are related to the property damage to the house, claims which arise
under common law. Id. It follows that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, and the
matter is remanded.

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is remanded to New Jersey Superior Court,
Bergen County.

/

DATEV

Senior Uni ç4Staies District Judge
2