Benjamin v. JBS S.A.

• Decision Date: 29 January 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2594
• Citation: 516 F.Supp.3d 463
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: Ferdinand BENJAMIN, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Enock Benjamin v. JBS S.A., et al.

516 F.Supp.3d 463

Ferdinand BENJAMIN, Individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Enock Benjamin

v.JBS S.A., et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2594

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed January 29, 2021

Jason Scott Weiss, Wapner Newman Wigrizer Brecher & Miller, Steven G. Wigrizer, Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Jeffrey P. Goodman, Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Ferdinand Benjamin.

Clayton E. Bailey, Bailey Brauer PLLC, Dallas, TX, Molly Elizabeth Flynn, Rebecca Trela, Mark D. Taticchi, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, JBS Souderton, Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corporation.

Clayton E. Bailey, Bailey Brauer PLLC, Dallas, TX, Molly Elizabeth Flynn, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for JBS USA Holdings, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Padova, J.

This is a negligence and intentional tort action arising out of the death of Plaintiff Ferdinand Benjamin's father, Enock Benjamin, who contracted COVID-19 and subsequently died of respiratory failure after reporting to his job at a meat-processing plant during the pandemic. Plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, JBS USA Holdings, Inc., JBS Souderton, Inc., and Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (collectively, the "Defendants"), various corporations allegedly affiliated with the meat-processing plant. The Complaint asserts state tort law claims only. Moreover, Enock and one defendant, JBS Souderton, Inc. ("Souderton"), are both Pennsylvania citizens.¹ Defendants nevertheless removed the case to this Court, asserting that we have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005), and diversity jurisdiction because Souderton was fraudulently joined. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. We held argument on Plaintiff's Motion on January 19, 2021. At the conclusion of the argument, we orally granted the Motion to Remand with this opinion to follow. (See N.T. 1/19/21, at 37-40.)

I. BACKGROUND

Defendants are "the world's largest meat processor." (Compl. ¶ 41.) Plaintiff's father, Enock Benjamin, was a citizen of Pennsylvania who worked at a JBS meat-processing plant in Souderton, Pennsylvania for over ten years until his death on April 3, 2020. (See id. ¶¶ 2, 47.) At the Souderton plant, workers were required to stand only a few feet apart and had to be within inches of each other to communicate because the machines were so loud. (Id. ¶ 53.) In March of 2020, Defendants knew that workers at the Souderton plant had contracted COVID-19. (Id. ¶¶ 159.) However, they led workers to believe that workers who were out sick had the flu instead of COVID-19. (Id. ¶¶ 61, 161-62.) They also ignored safety regulations and continued to make employees work in cramped conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60, 159-62.)

Indeed, up until March 27, 2020, Souderton plant workers were not required to wear masks or any protective gear, despite CDC and OSHA guidance to the contrary. (Id. ¶ 89.) On March 27, 2020, Defendants closed the Souderton plant for sanitation after a number of workers had fallen ill. (Id. ¶ 68.) That same day, Enock left work after experiencing "cough-like symptoms." (Id. ¶ 93.) The Souderton plant reduced production on March 30, 2020 "after several senior members displayed flu-like symptoms." (Id. ¶ 70.) By April 2, 2020, nineteen employees were confirmed to have tested positive. (Id. ¶ 76.) Enock passed away from respiratory failure related to COVID-19 on April 3, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 95-97.)

Following Enock's death, Plaintiff commenced this civil action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on Enock's behalf. Plaintiff asserts five common law claims against all Defendants: (1) negligence, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) wrongful death, and (5) survival. After Defendants removed the action to this Court, asserting federal question and diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the United States ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district court has original jurisdiction over cases involving a federal question or diverse parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. We have federal question jurisdiction where the claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Id. § 1331. Pursuant to § 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between ‘citizens of different states.’ " McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) ).

If the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed action, remand is mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Importantly, the defendant bears the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990) ; see also Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that the removing party "bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before the federal court") (citations omitted). To determine whether the defendant has met its burden of establishing removal jurisdiction, a district court may consider "reliable evidence that the defendant may proffer to support the removal." In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2006). However, "the removal statute is ‘to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.’ " Sdregas v. Home Depot, Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-5851, 2002 WL 32349815, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2002) (quoting Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111 ).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Question

Plaintiff argues that Defendants improperly removed this case based on federal question jurisdiction because the Complaint asserts only state tort claims. Defendants nevertheless maintain that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308, 125 S.Ct. 2363, 162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005). Federal district courts "have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 is typically invoked in cases in which the plaintiff "plead[s] a cause of action created by federal law." Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 772 F.3d 158, 162-63 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Grable, 545 U.S. at 312, 125 S.Ct. 2363 ) (additional citations omitted). "However, [state law] causes of action ... may nonetheless ‘arise under’ federal law for purposes of [federal question jurisdiction] if the four-pronged Grable test is met." Id. at 163.

The Grable test provides that a court will have federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim "if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress." Id. (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) ). Notably, "[o]nly a ‘slim category’ of cases satisfy the Grable test." Id. (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701, 126 S.Ct. 2121, 165 L.Ed.2d 131 (2006) ). The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving all four factors. See McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure, Inc., Civ. A. No. 14-7315, 2018 WL 3535142, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2018) (citing Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111 ). Defendants maintain that we have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Grable because the Complaint contains references to OSHA and CDC guidance and an Executive Order, issued weeks after Enock's death, recognized the importance of the continued operations of meat processors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

1. Necessarily Raised

Defendants argue that this case necessarily raises a federal issue because the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to comply with OSHA and CDC guidance. To illustrate, the Complaint alleges: "Despite [OSHA] guidance, [ ] Defendants did not obtain masks or other PPE for their workers until April 2, 2020," (Id. ¶ 26), and that Defendants were negligent in "[i]gnoring federal guidance from the CDC and OSHA by not mandating the use of masks and PPE at the JBS Souderton Plant[.]" (Id. ¶ 154(h).) Similarly, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to "mandate[e] and/or enforc[e] social distancing guidelines at the JBS Souderton Plant[,]" "[i]gnored federal guidance from the CDC and OSHA by not mandating that workers who were feeling ill report their symptoms to their superiors[,]" and "[i]gnor[ed] federal guidance from the CDC and OSHA by not mandating that workers who were feeling ill stay home from work and self-quarantine[.]" (Id. ¶ 154(i)-(k).)

"Not every case that implicates federal laws, statutes, or policies qualifies as a ‘federal case’ ...." McGuire v. Palmerton Hosp., Civ. A. No. 12-1718, 2012 WL 2362488, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2012) (citing Salsgiver Commc'ns, Inc. v. Consol. Commc'ns Holdings, Inc., Civ. A. No. 08-663, 2008 WL 2682685, at *5 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2008) ) (additional citations omitted). A federal issue is necessarily raised when "an element of the state law claim requires construction of federal law." MHA LLC v. HealthFirst, Inc., 629 F. App'x 409, 412-13 (3d Cir. 2015). In contrast, "[m]ere reference to federal statutes and regulations is insufficient to support federal question jurisdiction." McGuire, 2012 WL 2362488, at *3 (citing Kalick v. Nw. Airlines Corp., 372 F. App'x 317, 320 (3d Cir. 2010) ). Accordingly, ...