Atlas v. Poplar, s. 99-4113
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BEAM, HEANEY, and HANSEN; HANSEN |
| Citation | 209 F.3d 1064 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) In re: Atlas Van Lines, Inc.; In re: Poplar Bluff Transfer Company; In re: Nathan Stout; In re: Gregory Stout, Petitioners. Lanis L. Karnes,Appellee, v. Poplar Bluff Transfer Company;Nathan Stout; Gregory Stout; Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,Appellants. Submitted: |
| Docket Number | 99-4145,Nos. 99-4113,s. 99-4113 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1999 |
Page 1064
v.
Poplar Bluff Transfer Company;Nathan Stout; Gregory Stout; Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,Appellants.
Filed: April 6, 2000
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Page 1065
Before BEAM, HEANEY, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Atlas Van Lines, Poplar Bluff Transfer Company, Nathan Stout, and Gregory Stout (petitioners) appeal the district court's1 order remanding this case to state court. Alternatively, they seek a writ of mandamus from this court directing the district court to rescind its remand order. Lanis L. Karnes, acting pro se, argues that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order and that even if subject matter jurisdiction is present, the district court correctly remanded the case to state court. Karnes initially filed this action against the petitioners in Missouri state court.
Karnes claimed that she hired the petitioners to move her property from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and that, in the course of the move, the petitioners negligently damaged her property. Karnes's complaint alleged several theories of recovery premised exclusively on Missouri law. The petitioners removed this action to federal court. See 28 U.S.C.
Page 1066
1441(b). As a basis for federal court jurisdiction, they claimed that Karnes's Missouri state law claims are preempted by the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. See 49 U.S.C. 11707. The Carmack Amendment regulates the liability of common carriers engaged in interstate commerce. See Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 503-05 (1913).
Karnes filed a motion to remand this case to state court. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Karnes's complaint for failure to state a claim governed by the Carmack Amendment, and filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied Karnes's remand motion after finding that the preemptive force of the Carmack Amendment enveloped her state law claims. The district court also denied the petitioners' motions and granted Karnes leave to file an amended complaint asserting federal causes of action based on the Carmack Amendment. Following the filing of Karnes's amended complaint, the district court sua sponte reevaluated its denial of Karnes's motion to remand this case to state court. The district court concluded that petitioners' Carmack Amendment assertions actually were defenses to Karnes's state law causes of action. As defenses, they did not preempt Karnes's state law claims and did not confer federal jurisdiction based upon the well-pleaded complaint rule. The district court then ordered this case remanded to state court. The petitioners appeal or, alternatively, seek a writ of mandamus arguing that federal jurisdiction is proper because a federal question now appears on the face of the amended complaint. The petitioners contend we have jurisdiction over the remand order because the district court lacked authority to sua sponte reevaluate its prior order.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order. Although 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) generally prohibits appellate review of an order remanding a case to state court, the Supreme Court has held that 1447(d) is not implicated unless the district court remanded the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). Section 1447(c) provides in pertinent part that "[a] motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., Court File No. 13-cv-2958 (ADM/LIB)
...legal effect." In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing, in turn, Washer v. Bullitt County, 110 U.S. 588, 562 (1884) ("When a petition is amended by leave of the cou......
-
New Mexico v. General Elec. Co., No. CIV 99-1118 BSJ/KBM.
...(as a general rule, "an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect."); In re Atlas Van Lines, 209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir.2000) (It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without......
-
Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University, Civ. No. 08-4948 (JMR/RLE).
...removed many of the claims, and parties, from the original Complaint, and therefore, from this action. See, In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.2000) ("It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint ......
-
Structures v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. CIV 17-0397 JB/JLF.
...complaint without legal effect ....’ " Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) ). Rule 15(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows an amended complaint to relate back when the claim in the......
-
Sorenson v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., Court File No. 13-cv-2958 (ADM/LIB)
...legal effect." In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing, in turn, Washer v. Bullitt County, 110 U.S. 588, 562 (1884) ("When a petition is amended by leave of the cou......
-
New Mexico v. General Elec. Co., No. CIV 99-1118 BSJ/KBM.
...(as a general rule, "an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect."); In re Atlas Van Lines, 209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir.2000) (It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without......
-
Onyiah v. St. Cloud State University, Civ. No. 08-4948 (JMR/RLE).
...removed many of the claims, and parties, from the original Complaint, and therefore, from this action. See, In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.2000) ("It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint ......
-
Structures v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., No. CIV 17-0397 JB/JLF.
...complaint without legal effect ....’ " Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) ). Rule 15(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows an amended complaint to relate back when the claim in the......