Belmont v. Jetblue Airways Corp.

Decision Date13 August 2019
Docket Number18-CV-6655 (MKB)
Citation401 F.Supp.3d 348
Parties Steeve BELMONT, Plaintiff, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Michael B. Palillo, Michael B. Palillo, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Steven Michael Raffaele, Holland & Knight, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Steeve Belmont commenced the above-captioned action on October 12, 2018 in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County against Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1, Docket Entry No. 1.) On November 21, 2018, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of New York. (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant's employees caused him to be "falsely arrested and unlawfully detained," (id. ¶ 34), and brings state law claims for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, defamation of character, battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and seeks punitive damages and attorneys' fees, (see generally Compl., annexed to Notice of Removal as Ex. A, Docket Entry No. 1-1).

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court; Defendant opposes the motion. (Pl. Mot. to Remand ("Pl. Mot."), Docket Entry No. 11; Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Remand ("Pl. Mem."), Docket Entry No. 13; Def. Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. ("Def. Mem."), Docket Entry No. 16.) As further explained below, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore grants Plaintiff's motion and remands the action to state court.

I. Background

On April 21, 2018, Plaintiff accompanied his family to John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK") in Queens, New York, to assist them in boarding a flight to Florida. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–15.) At JFK, Plaintiff requested a "gate pass" to assist his family in boarding the aircraft. (Id. ¶¶ 11–12.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff unlawfully boarded the aircraft, but Plaintiff contends that Defendant's agent, servant, or employee gave Plaintiff a "gate pass."1 (Id. ¶ 12; Def. Mem. 2.) Plaintiff used the "gate pass" to "escort his children and their mother to the ‘JETBLUE’ terminal at JFK Airport and in particular[,] onto the airplane [for] Flight 1401 bound for Florida." (Compl. ¶ 14.) After Plaintiff assisted his family, he exited the aircraft and left JFK Airport. (Id. ¶ 16.)

The following day, April 22, 2018, at approximately 4:00 PM, officials of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey arrested Plaintiff for his actions in boarding the aircraft at the Jetblue Terminal and charged him with criminal impersonation in the second degree, in violation of section 190.25 of the New York Penal Law, and unlawful use or possession of official police cards, in violation of section 14-108-1 of the New York City Administrative Code. (Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 21.) Plaintiff was transported to Central Booking on April 23, 2018 at approximately 3:00 AM and later released from the Queens County Criminal Court at approximately 4:00 PM. (Id. ¶¶ 19–21.) On August 3, 2018, the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed and sealed. (Id. ¶ 26.)

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff commenced an action in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. (Compl.)

On November 21, 2018, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of the action to this Court. (Notice of Removal.) In support of removal, Defendant asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act ("FAA") and implicate substantial issues of federal law. (Id. ¶¶ 10–11, 19.) Plaintiff seeks to remand the action to the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. (Pl. Mot.) In support of his motion, Plaintiff argues that the FAA does not preempt state law tort claims and that JetBlue's anticipated defense is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. (Pl. Mem. 4.) Plaintiff also seeks costs and attorneys' fees. (Id. at 13.)

II. Discussion
a. Standards of review

i. Removal

A defendant may remove a civil action brought in state court to a federal court in "any civil action ... of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier , 211 F.3d 697, 700–01 (2d Cir. 2000). The statutory provisions for federal subject matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Federal question jurisdiction provides federal courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Bounds v. Pine Belt Mental Health Care Res. , 593 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ). A plaintiff properly invokes section 1331 jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim "arising under" the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal. , 463 U.S. 1, 10, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) ("[A] defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law."). "[I]n light of the congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction, as well as the importance of preserving the independence of state governments, federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability." Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky , 704 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Lupo v. Human Affairs Int'l, Inc. , 28 F.3d 269, 274 (2d Cir. 1994) ). A potential defense premised on a federal statute is insufficient to warrant removal. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 U.S. 200, 207, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004) (stating that "the existence of a federal defense normally does not create statutory ‘arising under’ jurisdiction"); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust , 463 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) (same). In addition, "the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction." Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson , 478 U.S. 804, 813, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986). A notice of removal must allege a proper basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 – 1445. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig. , 488 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2007) ("In determining whether jurisdiction is proper, we look only to the jurisdictional facts alleged in the Notices of Removal."); Bankhead v. New York , No. 13-CV-3377, 2013 WL 6145776, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2013) ("An effective petition for the removal of a state action to federal court must allege a proper basis for the removal under sections 1441 through 1445 of Title 28." (quoting Negron v. New York , No. 02-CV-1688, 2002 WL 1268001, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2002) )). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving that the jurisdictional and procedural requirements have been met. Cal. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom, Inc. , 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004) ("Where, as here, jurisdiction is asserted by a defendant in a removal petition, it follows that the defendant has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.").

ii. Well-pleaded complaint rule

"Whether federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over an action is typically governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule, pursuant to which federal question jurisdiction exists only if plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based on federal law.’ " Romano v. Kazacos , 609 F.3d 512, 518 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 70, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009) ); Jana Master Fund, Ltd. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. , 490 F. Supp. 2d 325, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Federal jurisdiction must be found from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim ..., unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." (quoting D'Alessio v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc. , 258 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2001) )). "A cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff's ‘well-pleaded complaint’ raises an issue of federal law." New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation , 686 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2012). "A cause of action raises an issue of federal law only when ‘a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... [is an] essential [element] of the ... cause of action.’ " Shinnecock Indian Nation , 686 F.3d at 138 (quoting Gully v. First Nat'l Bank , 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936) ). A plaintiff "is free to avoid federal jurisdiction by ‘pleading only state claims even where a federal claim is also available.’ " Romano , 609 F.3d at 518 (quoting Marcus v. AT & T Corp. , 138 F.3d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 1998) ).

However, under the artful pleading doctrine, which "is an independent corollary of the well-pleaded complaint rule[,] ... a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions in a complaint." Franchise Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. at 22, 103 S.Ct. 2841 ; Romano , 609 F.3d at 518–19 ("[T]here exists a corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule — the ‘artful pleading’ rule — pursuant to which plaintiff cannot avoid removal by declining to plead ‘necessary federal questions.’ " (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank , 522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) )); Fin. and Trading, Ltd. v. Rhodia S.A. , No. 04-CV-6083, 2004 WL 2754862, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004) ("[A] plaintiff is not completely free to limit the complaint as he wishes. The doctrine of artful pleading, an ‘independent corollary’ of the well-pleaded complaint rule, holds that ‘a plaintiff may not defeat removal by omitting to plead necessary federal questions in a complaint.’ " (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. at 22, 103 S.Ct. 2841 )). "If the artful pleading rule applies, cou...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. First ABU Dhabi Bank PJSC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 14, 2020
    ...Construction Laborers Vacation Trust , 463 U.S. 1, 8–9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983) ); see also Belmont v. JetBlue Airways Corp. , 401 F.Supp.3d 348, 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (holding that federal issue not necessarily raised because state-law claims did not require "determinations of ......
  • Ramirez v. City Wings, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • August 20, 2021
    ... ... Smith Kline ... Beecham Corp. , 724 F.3d 337, 346 (3d Cir. 2013) ... (“Jurisdiction under § ... complete preemption theories must fail.”); Belmont ... v. JetBlue Airways Corp. , 401 F.Supp.3d 348, 357 ... ...
  • Flavell v. Int'l Bank for Reconstruction & Dev.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 7, 2022
    ... ... 2020); see, ... e.g. , Burrell v. Bayer Corp. , 918 F.3d 372, 382 ... (4th Cir. 2019) (denying jurisdiction ... Belmont v. JetBlue Airways Corp. , 401 ... F.Supp.3d 348, 359 (E.D.N.Y ... ...
  • Flavell v. Jim Yong Kim
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 7, 2022
    ... ... 2020); see, e.g. , ... Burrell v. Bayer Corp. , 918 F.3d 372, 382 (4th Cir ... 2019) (denying jurisdiction ... Belmont v. JetBlue Airways Corp. , 401 ... F.Supp.3d 348, 359 (E.D.N.Y ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT