SANDERS et al v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. et al

Filing 19

ORDER THAT FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND 3 IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 1/10/18. 1/10/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

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