GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF SIXTY ACRE RESERVE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. BROAN-NUTONE, LLC et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 3/20/2013. (eaj)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee
of SIXTY ACRE RESERVE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROAN-NUTONE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-4398 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company
(“GNY”), brought this subrogation action (“GNY Action”) to
recover damages for losses sustained in a fire by its insured,
Sixty Acre Reserve Condominium Association (“SARCA”), in New
Jersey Superior Court, Ocean County (“Ocean County Superior”).
(See dkt. entry no. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. C, GNY Compl. at 23.)

Three of the four defendants named therein — i.e., Broan-

Nutone, LLC (“BNLLC”), Jakel, Inc. (“JKI”), and Regal Beloit
Corporation (“RBC”) — removed the GNY Action to this Court.

(See

Notice of Removal at 1.)1
1

BNLLC, JKI, and RBC assert that the fourth defendant —
Aubrey Manufacturing, Inc. (“AMI”) — is a defunct entity. (See
Notice of Removal at 3.) GNY does not contest this assertion,
and counsel has not appeared on behalf of AMI in the GNY Action.
Therefore, the Court will separately order GNY to show cause why
the Complaint insofar as it is asserted against AMI should not be
dismissed pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
or Local Civil Rule 41.1.

GNY now moves to remand the GNY Action (“Motion”).
dkt. entry no. 3, Notice of Mot. at 1-2.)

(See

For the following

reasons, this Court is constrained to deny the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Jane Hassinger owned a residential unit (“Unit”) that was
located within SARCA.
Certification at 1.)

(See dkt. entry no. 3, Cinquina
There was a fan installed on the Unit’s

ceiling (“Ceiling Fan”).

(Id.)

The defendants allegedly were

involved in the design, manufacture, and sale of the Ceiling Fan
and its motor.

(See GNY Compl. at 2.)2

A fire occurred in the Unit on November 2, 2010.
3.)

(Id. at 2-

Hassinger’s insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

(“SFF”), covered Hassinger for her losses.
Certification at 2.)

(See Cinquina

GNY covered SARCA for its losses.

(See GNY

Compl. at 3.)
SFF then brought a subrogation action (“SFF Action”) in
Ocean County Superior on February 15, 2012, asserting claims of
products liability against BNLLC, AMI, JKI, and RBC.
Cinquina Certification, Ex. A, SFF Compl. at 2-3.)

(See
SFF alleged

that (1) defects in the Ceiling Fan and its motor caused the

2

The parties do not specify in their pleadings whether the
Unit was a residential unit. The Court has determined that the
Unit was a residential unit through independent research on
Westlaw.

2

fire, and (2) SFF was entitled to recover damages from those
defendants due to the losses sustained in the fire.
3.)

(Id. at 2-

GNY brought the GNY Action in Ocean County Superior on April

4, 2012, asserting the same types of claims against the same
defendants.

(See GNY Compl. at 2-3.)

BNLLC, JKI, and RBC removed the GNY Action to this Court
pursuant to the subject-matter jurisdiction conferred by 28
U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1332.

(See Notice of Removal at 2-3; id.,

Ex. E, GNY Statement Of Damages (demanding $120,000 in damages).)
But the SFF Action remained in Ocean County Superior, as the
claims therein did not the meet the amount-in-controversy
threshold of Section 1332.

(See Cinquina Certification at 3

(stating SFF seeks $66,963.73 in damages).)
GNY argues in support of the Motion that: (1) the same
defendants are named in both the GNY Action and the SFF Action;
(2) the discovery issues that will inevitably arise in each
action will be either the same or similar; (3) litigating the GNY
Action and the SFF Action in separate courts will waste
resources; and, (4) the GNY Action should be remanded in order to
facilitate consolidation with the SFF Action for the purposes of
wise judicial administration.

(See dkt. entry no. 3, GNY Br. at

3-7; dkt. entry no. 9, GNY Reply Br. at 7-8, 10.)
and RBC oppose the motion.

BNLLC, JKI,

(See dkt. entry no. 4, BNLLC Opp’n

Br. at 1-5; dkt. entry no. 8, JKI & RBC Joint Opp’n Br. at 2-3.)

3

DISCUSSION
I.

Colorado River
GNY asks the Court to: (1) refrain from exercising subject-

matter jurisdiction over the GNY Action; and, (2) remand the GNY
Action to the state court where the arguably parallel SFF Action
is being litigated.

GNY argues — without any supporting

authority — that “this matter is not based upon . . . any of the
. . . abstentions outlined in [Colorado River Water Conservation
District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976)], but rather upon
the basis of wise judicial administration”.
10.)

(GNY Reply Br. at

That argument is simply without merit, as this Court has no

authority to remand the GNY Action to Ocean County Superior for
the purposes of “wise judicial administration” due to the
existence of the SFF Action.
River for guidance.

The Court must refer to Colorado

See McMurray v. De Vink, 27 Fed.Appx. 88, 92

(3d Cir. 2002) (stating that “[i]t is well established . . . that
Colorado River governs motions to dismiss on grounds of
abstention”); Neuner v. Samost, No. 12-2420, 2012 WL 5247773, at
*2-3 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2012) (referring to Colorado River on
motion to remand an action to state court where an arguably
parallel action was proceeding).
Federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to
exercise the subject-matter jurisdiction bestowed upon them, and
the mere “pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to

4

proceedings concerning the same matter in the [f]ederal court
having jurisdiction”.

Colo. River, 424 U.S. at 817 (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Nonetheless, pursuant to

Colorado River, there may be exceptional circumstances presented
by an action requiring a federal court to grant the type of
relief that GNY seeks here.

See Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v.

Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1983).
II.

The Motion
It is of no moment that the SFF Action and the GNY Action

were brought by different plaintiffs and seek different amounts
of damages.

For the purposes of the analysis here, it is

sufficient that the two actions appear to be substantially
similar in nature.

See Neuner v. Samost, 2012 WL 5247773, at *3.

But Colorado River requires GNY to show that there is a
“clear congressional policy against piecemeal litigation”
counseling in favor of remand of an action to recover damages for
products liability when there is a parallel action in state
court.

McMurray, 27 Fed.Appx. at 92; see Ryan v. Johnson, 115

F.3d 193, 198 (3d Cir. 1997) (stating that “garden-variety state
law issues” concerning negligence are not “sufficient evidence of
a congressional policy to consolidate multiple lawsuits for
unified resolution in the state courts”).

The “narrowness” of

the holding in Colorado River is exemplified by this requirement,
and it is a prime consideration when a party attempts to overcome

5

a federal court’s obligation to exercise subject-matter
jurisdiction.

Spring City Corp. v. Am. Bldgs. Co., 193 F.3d 165,

172 (3d Cir. 1999); see McMurray, 27 Fed.Appx. at 93.

GNY has

failed to meet this requirement, and thus the Court need not
address any of the other factors raised in Colorado River.
Any concerns that GNY may have due to litigation occurring
simultaneously in Ocean County Superior and this Court can be
resolved with reference to the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel, as well as any doctrines related thereto.
See Spring City Corp., 193 F.3d at 172.

The GNY Action will

proceed in this Court.3
CONCLUSION
The motion to remand the GNY Action to Ocean County Superior
will be denied.

The Court will issue an appropriate order.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

March 20, 2013

3

GNY bemoans that “[t]he Courts will then have to deal
with issues of collateral estoppel, res judicata and the like” if
the GNY Action is not remanded to Ocean County Superior, where
the GNY Action would likely be consolidated with the SFF Action.
(GNY Br. at 7.) Indeed, this Court and Ocean County Superior may
be required to deal with such issues.
6