SEABRON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION SETTING FORTH THE REASONS WHY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME ARE DENIED. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOLLOWS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 7/15/13. 7/15/13 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rab, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATRICIA SEABRON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMTRAK,
Defendant.

: CIVIL ACTION
:
:
:
:
:
: NO. 13-2033

MEMORANDUM
July 15th, 2013

PRATTER, J.

Patricia Seabron sued the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) in state
court for injuries she sustained after tripping over a broken metal pole on property that Amtrak
allegedly controlled. Amtrak timely removed the case to this Court. Ms. Seabron then moved to
remand to state court, arguing that Amtrak has no basis for federal jurisdiction. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will deny Ms. Seabron’s motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 22, 2010, Ms. Seabron allegedly suffered injuries as a result of tripping
over a broken metal pole that was protruding from a sidewalk. On July 24, 2012, she brought a
claim in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against numerous defendants who
were believed to be owners, possessors and/or controllers of the premises where she was injured
(“Seabron I”). In the course of discovery in Seabron I, Ms. Seabron claims she found that
Amtrak also could be a defendant in the matter. On December 18, 2012, Ms. Seabron filed a
writ of summons against Amtrak, followed by a complaint on April 11, 2013, also in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“Seabron II”). In her submission here, Ms. Seabron

1

states that she anticipated that the two separate state court actions would be consolidated;
however, she never attempted to join Amtrak as a defendant in Seabron I. On April 16, 2013,
Amtrak removed Seabron II to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1349, and 49 U.S.C. §
24101. Subsequently, on May 16, 2013, Ms. Seabron filed a motion to remand.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the removal statute,
Any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Defendants, as the removing parties, bear the burden of proving that
removal is proper. See Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 359 (3d Cir. 1995). All
doubts concerning the propriety of removal are to be resolved in favor of remand. See Boyer v.
Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990).
A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the initial pleading. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b)(1). A writ of summons alone is not considered an “initial pleading” and does not
trigger the 30-day period for removal. Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 223 (3d
Cir. 2005). However, a complaint is considered an initial pleading and triggers the 30-day
period. See id.
III. DISCUSSION
Even being mindful that all doubts concerning the propriety of removal are to be resolved
in favor of remand, the Court concludes that it must deny Ms. Seabron’s motion for remand
because federal question jurisdiction is present. Amtrak removed this case based on both federal

2

question and diversity jurisdiction. 1 In her motion, Ms. Seabron argues that Amtrak failed to
establish a proper basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. In response, Amtrak argues that
there is federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1349 because Amtrak was
established by an Act of Congress and the United States owns over one-half of its stock, thus
making it a litigant appropriate for federal court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1331. A case “aris[es] under” federal law within the meaning of § 1331 if “a well-pleaded
complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right
to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire
Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689-90 (2006) (alteration in original)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1,
27-28 (1983)).
In McManus v. Glassman’s Wynnefield, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 1043 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (Pollak,
J.), the court addressed whether federal district courts have original jurisdiction over suits against
Amtrak. The plaintiff in McManus filed an action in state court alleging that Amtrak and other
defendants were jointly and severally liable for his son’s death. See 710 F. Supp. at 1044.
Amtrak timely filed a notice of removal, asserting that it was a corporation created by an Act of

1

The case may or may not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Seabron and Amtrak are
citizens of different states; however, the complaint only demands damages “in excess of fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00),” see Docket No. 1 at ¶12, thus potentially not meeting the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy
requirement. Neither party has addressed this issue, but the Court is obligated to raise subject matter jurisdiction
issues sua sponte. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004); Nesbit v. Gears
Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003). However, a deeper analysis of diversity jurisdiction is
unnecessary because Amtrak can remove the case for other reasons.

3

Congress and the United States owned more than one-half of its stock. Id; see also 28 U.S.C. §
1349 (“The district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action by or against any
corporation upon the ground that it was incorporated by or under an Act of Congress, unless the
United States is the owner of more than one-half of its capital stock.”). The plaintiff then moved
to remand the case. Although McManus was remanded because not all co-defendants joined the
removal petition within the 30-day removal period, see 710 F. Supp. at 1045, the court held that
such suits do arise under federal law even if Amtrak is joined with defendants in an “action that
is otherwise non-federal in character.” Id. at 1044.
Here, Ms. Seabron does not dispute that Amtrak is a federally-chartered corporation, as it
was at the time McManus was decided. Furthermore, no party disputes that the United States
owns more than one-half of Amtrak’s stock. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction would exist
even if Ms. Seabron had joined Amtrak as a defendant in Seabron I, and it certainly exists given
that Amtrak is the sole defendant in Seabron II. See Hollus v. Amtrak Ne. Corridor, 937 F.
Supp. 1110, 1113 (D.N.J. 1996), aff'd, 118 F.3d 1575 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Because a majority of the
capital stock of Amtrak is owned by the United States, the federal courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over any action involving Amtrak.”) (emphasis added); see also McManus 710 F.
Supp. at 1044 (“Since Amtrak is federally-chartered and federally-owned, this suit arises under
federal law[.]”). The Court has original jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1349, and Amtrak is permitted to remove the case to this court.

4

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand. An
appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

S/Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
United States District Judge

5