Robinson et al v. Littlefield et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Because it appears that the pivotal question - - whether this matter remains pending before the AAA - - can easily be ascertained, the Court will direct that the Defendants, as the proponents of th e proposition that the AAA continues to view this dispute as ongoing, produce for this Court documentation from the AAA that Defendants motion to modify the award remains pending and that the arbitration between these parties remains unresolved. An Order consistent with these determinations follows and will be filed simultaneously herewith.(See Memo for complete details)Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/2/14. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
William E. Robinson,Sr.,
William E. Robinson,Jr., and
Tara Robinson, H/W,

:
:

Plaintiffs,

:(Case No. 3:14-CV-0195

v.

:

Derwood Littlefield, Individually
and D/B/A Boat-N-RV Superstore
And Boat-N-RV Superstore.

: Judge Richard P. Conaboy
:

Defendants.
:
___________________________________________________________________
Memorandum
We consider here a Motion to Remand (Doc. 8) this case to
state court filed by the Plaintiffs Robinson and a Motion to
Dismiss/Strike (Doc. 6) a judgment entered in the Schuylkill County
Court of Common Pleas filed by Defendants Derwood Littlefield,
individually, and d/b/a Boat-N-RV Superstore, and Boat-N-RV
Superstore (hereinafter collectively “Boat”).

These motions have

been fully briefed by the parties and are ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand will be
denied and Defendants’ Motion to Strike/Dismiss will be held in
abeyance pending receipt by the Court of additional information to
be supplied by Defendants.
I.

Background.
This case arises from Plaintiffs’ purchase of a recreational

vehicle from Defendants on or about May 27, 2008.

1

Due to claims

regarding the quality and/or performance of the vehicle, this
matter went to arbitration before the American Arbitration
Association (“AAA”) pursuant to a clause in the contract of sale.
The arbitrator ruled for Plaintiffs and issued an award dated
December 9, 2013 that required Defendants to pay Plaintiffs
$79,370.45 in compensatory damages along with reimbursement of fees
and expenses in the amount of $4,501.86 (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 1).
On January 10, 2014, some thirty two (32) days after the
arbitrator entered his award, Defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 50
of the AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, to modify and/or
correct the award.

(Doc. 7, Ex. 3).

1

By this motion Defendants

purport to have “...raised basic issues regarding which claims were
granted and the formulation and basis for the award...”.
at 6).

(Doc. 7

Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion to modify the

arbitration award asserts, inter alia, that the motion was out of
time and that, because the parties did not bargain for a “reasoned
award”, the Defendants are not entitled to an explanation of the
rationale for the award.

(Doc. 7-4, ¶¶ 2 and 6-7).

On January 22,

2014, Plaintiffs entered judgment on the arbitration award in the
Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas.

Defendants then removed

this action to this Court on February 6, 2014 on the basis that
diversity of citizenship exists among the parties and the

1

Rule 50 explicitly requires that motions to modify an arbitration award be filed within 20
days of the date the award is made.
2

jurisdictional amount in controversy has been met pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1461. (Doc. 1 at 1).
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand challenges this Court’s
jurisdiction by asserting that Defendant Boat is a Pennsylvania
citizen thus negating the requirement of complete diversity.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Strike is based on the assertion that
this controversy is yet pending before the arbitrator and,
consequently, is before this Court prematurely.

We shall consider

these motions separately.
II.

Legal Discussion.
A.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.

Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant Boat is a Pennsylvania
citizen is simply incorrect.

The documentation submitted to this

Court indicates clearly that Defendant Boat is merely a fictitious
name under which Tilden Recreational Vehicles, Inc. (“Tilden”) does
business in Pennsylvania.

Most significantly, the corporate

records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania clearly reflect that
Tilden is the corporate entity that sold the vehicle in question to
Plaintiffs.

(Doc. 9-2 at 2-4).

Moreover, the documentation

supplied to this Court establishes to the Court’s satisfaction: (1)
that Tilden is a corporation organized under the laws of New York
state (Doc. 13-1 at 6-8); (2) that Tilden’s principal place of
business is in the state of Tennessee (Doc. 13-1 at 3-4); and (3)
that individual Defendant Littlefield is also a resident of

3

Tennessee. (Doc. 13-1 at 3).
The citizenship of the parties determines whether they are
diverse.

See Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Hansen, 48 F.3d 693, 696 (3d.

Cir. 1995).

As a mere fictitious name registered in Pennsylvania,

Boat is not a separate business entity capable of citizenship in
any state.

See Frey v. Grumbine’s RV; Damon Motor Coach; and

Meyer’s RV Centers, LLC, 2010 WL 3703803 (M.D.Pa., Rambo, J.).
Rather, it is a creature of Tilden, the corporation which is the
appropriate Defendant in this action.

Because Tilden is neither

incorporated in Pennsylvania nor uses a Pennsylvania location as
its principal place of business and because the Plaintiffs Robinson
are Pennsylvania domiciliaries, there is complete diversity of
citizenship among the parties in this dispute.

See Johnson v.

SmithKline Beecham Corp., 723 F.3d 337, 347 (3d. Cir. 2013).

Thus,

we find that the Defendants have carried their burden to prove that
subject matter jurisdiction resides in this Court, as required by
Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 359 (3d. Cir. 1995),
and the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand must be denied.
B.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Praecipe and

Strike the Judgment Entered in the Schuylkill County Court
of Common Pleas.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Strike is based upon its
assertion that arbitration of this matter is incomplete due to the
supposed pendency of its aforementioned motion to modify the

4

arbitration award before the AAA.

Plaintiffs respond that the

motion is moot as untimely under the AAA’s operating rules and is
not being actively considered, nor will it ever be actively
considered by that body.
The fact that the parties have heard nothing from the AAA in
the four and one half months since Defendants filed their motion
affords some plausibility to Plaintiffs’ contention that the AAA
considers the award in question final.2

This view gains additional

credence when one considers that the motion, which essentially
seeks an articulated rationale for the award, comes in a context
where the parties bargained for a “standard award” which required
no such specificity on the arbitrator’s part.
Doc. 10-1, ¶ 9).

(Doc. 10 at 9-10;

Nevertheless, the Court is reluctant to presume

what the Plaintiffs would have it presume (that the AAA considers
Defendants’ motion to modify the award to be a nullity), and will
require additional information before ruling on Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss/Strike.
Because it appears that the pivotal question - - whether this
matter remains pending before the AAA - - can easily be
ascertained, the Court will direct that the Defendants, as the
proponents of the proposition that the AAA continues to view this
dispute as ongoing, produce for this Court documentation from the
2

Rule 50, which was invoked by the Defendants as the basis for their motion to modify the
arbitration award, requires the arbitrator to “dispose of the request within 20 calendar days after
transmittal by the AAA to the arbitrator of the request and any response thereto.”
5

AAA that Defendants’ motion to modify the award remains pending and
that the arbitration between these parties remains unresolved.
Order consistent with these determinations follows and will be
filed simultaneously herewith.

BY THE COURT

S/Richard P. Conaboy
Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
United States District Court
Dated: June 2, 2014

6

An