Filing 18


Download PDF
IN THE UNITED ST U TATES DIS STRICT CO OURT FO THE EA OR ASTERN DI ISTRICT O PENNSY OF YLVANIA ANTHO ONY SAN NDERS SANDE ERS, h/w and a OLIV VA CIVIL ACTION L v. NO. 17 7-4344 RYDER TRUCK RENTAL INC. a/k R K L, k/a and d/b Ryder Truck Ren b/a ntal, RYDE ER SYSTE INC. an JULIO ACEVEDO EM, nd A ME EMORAND DUM ORDE RE: MO ER OTION TO REMAND , Baylson, J. I. Janu uary10, 2018 8 Factual Background and Procedural Histo B d ory This case aris out of an alleged car accident in Philadelph between a truck drive by T ses n r n hia en Defendan Julio Ace nt evedo and a car driven by Plaintiff Anthony Sa f anders. The Complaint also e t alleges th Defenda Acevedo was an age or empl hat ant o ent loyee of Ryd Truck R der Rental and R Ryder System (the “Corpo orate Defen ndants”). Count I of the Complaint is for Negligence and C e ount II is fo Loss of Consortium. Plaintiff Olivia Sander is include for or C rs ed Recklessness and Co both coun although she was no present for the alleged car acciden nts, h ot r d nt. On Septembe 19, 2017, Plaintiff fil their Complaint in t Court of Common P O er led the f Pleas, Philadelp phia County y. Defenda ants filed a Notice of Removal on Septembe 29, 2017, and n er , Plaintiffs filed a Mo s otion to Rem mand on Oct tober 4, 201 17. Defenda ants timely responded t the to Motion to Remand on October 12 2017. o 2, On Novembe 20, 2017, this Court ordered Plain O er o ntiffs to spe ecifically alle the corp ege porate citizensh of the Co hip orporate Def fendants, be ecause “[u]pon review o the Comp of plaint, it doe not es appear th Plaintiffs have specif hat s fically allege [their] co ed orporate citiz zenship.” T Court’s O The Order 1   specifica stated th “[i]f thes entities ar not corpo ally hat, se re orate citizens of Pennsyl s lvania, it is l likely that dive ersity of citiz zenship exis and the Motion to R sts M Remand shou be denie uld ed.” The Co ourt’s Order als stated tha “[i]f for any reason, Plaintiffs d not [spec so at, , do cifically alle the corp ege porate citizensh of Defend hip dants], the Court intends to deny the Motion to R C s e Remand.” Plaintiffs tim mely field an Amended Complaint o November 30, 2017. The Ame n on ended Complain mirrors th citizenshi allegation contained in the origin Complai nt he ip ns nal int. The relevant paragraph are excerp below: hs pted 3. Defendan Ryder Tru Rental, Inc [sic] a/k and d/b/ Ryder Tr nt uck k/a /a/ ruck Rental is an organized and existin business entity that m be served with proce at the ad d ng e may ess ddress as stated in the original process fi in this m i iled matter. 4. Defendan Ryder Sys nt stem, Inc. is an organize and exist ed ting business entity that may t be served with proce at the ad d ess ddress as sta ated in the o original process filed in this n matter. 6. Defendan Ryder Tr nt ruck Rental is an entit and fictio [sic] na ty ous ame at all t times material hereto and ev since 1957 registere d in the Com h ver mmonwealth of Pennsylv h vania .... 7. Since bot plaintiffs Anthony an Olivia Sa th nd anders and D DBA defend dant Ryder T Truck Rental at all relevant times are re esidents and citizens of Pennsylvani . . . there is no d ia diversity of citizenshi . . . . o ip ). (ECF 14) II. Legal Sta andards   28 U.S.C. § 1441 genera permits defendants in “any civ action br ally s s vil rought in a State w istrict courts of the Unit States ha original jurisdiction” to remove such s ted ave court of which the di action “to the district court of th United Sta for the d o t he ates district and division emb bracing the place where su action is pending.” Thus, dete uch s ermining wh hether an ac ction is prop perly remov to ved federal court necessi c itates referen to other statutes con nce r nferring “or riginal jurisd diction”––su as uch the statut conferring “diversity” jurisdictio See 28 U te g ” on. U.S.C. § 13 332. If remo oval is impr roper, 2   sdiction ove an action, “the court must and a co determin that it la ourt nes acks subject matter juris t er , dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). . III. Analysis Plaintiffs’ Motion to Re M emand allege that this Court lacks subject m es matter jurisdi iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylv 8 1 vania and D Defendants R Ryder Truck Re ental and Ry yder System are also cit m tizens of Pen nnsylvania. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that “acc cording to a search of records with the Pennsy r h ylvania Cor rporations B Bureau, defen ndant Ryder Tr ruck Rental at all releva times an ever sinc e 1957 has been an ent and ficti ant nd tity itious name in ‘active’ stat and registered in Ph tus hiladelphia, P Pennsylvani ia.” Plaintif then state that ffs e this Cou should re urt emand beca ause it is th removing party’s bu he g urden to dem monstrate fe ederal jurisdicti and all doubts regar ion d rding the pro opriety of th removal m he must be reso olved in fav of vor remand. Boyer v. Sn nap-On Tool Corp., 913 F.3d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. ls 3 . 8 1085 (19 991). Plaint tiffs attach as Exhibit A a printout of Ryder T a t Truck Renta Pennsylv al’s vania corporate registration e n. Defendants’ Response to the Motion to Remand asserts that Plaintiffs f D R o n d t failed to pro operly allege co orporate citiz zenship of Ry yder Truck Rental and R R Ryder System Instead, they contend the m. d, Complain is devoid of any alleg nt gations abou the Corpo ut orate Defend dants’ states of incorpor ration or princip place of business. Defendants assert that C pal f D a Corporate De efendants ar incorporat in re ted Florida, and that they file their Annual Repo in Florid Attache as Exhibit A and B t the a y A orts da. ed ts to Response are Florid Division of Corpora e da ations Reco ords and 20 017 Annual Reports fo the or Corporat Defendant Defendan also poin out that p te ts. nts nt proper invoca ation of dive ersity jurisdi iction requires Plaintiff to allege whe a corpor ere ration has it principal place of bu ts usiness, and they contend that the Com t mplaint and Motion to Re M emand both fail to alleg that Corpo ge orate Defend dants’ 3   principal places of bu l usiness are within Penns w sylvania. S. Freedman & Co., Inc. v Raab, 180 Fed. v. 0 App’x. 316, 320 (3d Cir. 2006). Lastly, Defendants c ontend that Plaintiffs’ d 3 d D diversity cla aim–– based on Ryder Tru Rental having a re n uck egistered of ffice in Philadelphia––i insufficie to is ent establish corporate citizenship. Rubin v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 324 F. Supp. 204 (E.D Pa. c B D. 1971). Plaintiffs sho ould not be permitted to avoid f e federal juris sdiction by obfuscating the g citizensh of Corporate Defen hip ndants in th heir Compla aint. This Court orde ered Plaintif to ffs specifica plead the corporate citizenship of the Corpo ally e c o orate Defend dants and the failed to d so. ey do Rather th supplementing their allegations, Plaintiffs in their Amen han n nded Compla employe the aint ed same ina adequate lan nguage con ntained in th heir origina Complain i.e., that each Corp al nt, porate Defendan is an “org nt ganized and existing business entity that may b served wi process a the y be ith at address as stated in the original process fil in this m a l led matter,” and that Ryder Truck Ren is d r ntal “registere in Penn ed” nsylvania. These allega T ations are ina adequate to establish th the Corp hat porate Defendan are citiz nts zens of Pen nnsylvania. Therefore, because Pl laintiffs hav not coun ve ntered Defendan assertion that Corpo nts’ n orate Defend dants are cit tizens of Flo orida alone, t there is com mplete diversity of parties ju ustifying sub bject matter jurisdiction i federal co   j in ourt. IV. Conclusio on   For the foregoing reasons it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ M s, Motion to Re emand (ECF 3) is F D. DENIED RT: BY THE COUR Michael M. B Baylson /s/ M MIC CHAEL M. BAYLSON U.S.D.J. N, O:\CIVIL 17\ \17-4344 Sanders v Ryder Truck\Or rder denying motio to remand.docx on x 4  

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?