Brown v. Amazon Headquarters LLC
| Docket Number | 1:23-cv-00189 (MSN/WEF) |
| Decision Date | 04 August 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTINA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON HEADQUARTERS LLC AKA AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 6), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt No. 10), and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 26). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, deny Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff Christina Brown's sister, Poushawn Brown, was an Amazon Warehouse employee from 2018 to 2021. Dkt No. 1-1 (“Compl.”) at 4. Christina Brown[1]alleges that the negligence of Defendants Amazon Headquarters LLC AKA Amazon, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc.[2](collectively, “Amazon”) led to her sister's COVID-19 illness and subsequent death in January 2021. Id. Brown seeks damages for pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and exemplary damages. Id. at 5.
Poushawn worked as a delivery driver and package sorter before becoming a “Safety Champion” in Amazon Warehouse's COVID-19 safety department in June 2020. Id. As a Safety Champion, Poushawn “was instructed by management to perform COVID-19 tests on other Amazon employees,” but did not receive training from a medical professional on how to properly perform the tests. Id. Poushawn was not given protective measures-such as an N-93 mask, plexiglass barriers, gloves, or a face shield-to use during these tests. Id. Poushawn eventually informed her management that she was experiencing COVID 19 symptoms, but she was still required to come into work. Id. Poushawn died as a result of the illness on January 8, 2021. Id.
On December 30, 2022, Brown filed her Complaint in Fairfax County Circuit Court. Compl. at 3-4. Amazon filed a Notice of Removal to this Court on February 10, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1). On February 27, 2023, Brown filed a Motion to Remand the case to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, (Dkt. No. 6), to which Amazon timely filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 17).
On March 3, 2023, Amazon filed a Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 11. Brown filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 20), and Amazon filed a reply (Dkt. No. 24).[3]
On April 20, 2023, Brown filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint, seeking to add to her complaint a Certificate of Qualification from the Prince William County Circuit Court stating that she is Poushawn's legal representative. See (Dkt. No. 26). Amazon has opposed the motion to amend. (Dkt. No. 29). The Court is satisfied that oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for resolution.
When faced with both a motion to remand and a motion to dismiss, a court first assesses the motion to remand and then, if the court determines it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, proceeds to consider the motion to dismiss. Burrell v. Bayer Corp., 918 F.3d 372, 379-80 (4th Cir. 2019).
Generally, a defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court if the case could have originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original jurisdiction exists where a claim arises under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “The party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2006).
If federal jurisdiction is established, the court proceeds to consider the motions to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss a claim if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Evans v B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999) ().
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a claim the complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009). A plaintiff must make more than bald accusations or mere speculation; “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). When considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint” and must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
A complaint by a pro se plaintiff should be liberally construed. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But the Court's “task is not to discern the unexpressed intent of the plaintiff.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 413 n.3 (4th Cir. 2006). Nor does the liberal pleading standard “excuse a clear failure in the pleadings to allege a federally cognizable claim.” Laber v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, No. 3:21-cv-502, 2021 WL 5893293, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2021) (citing Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990)).
In her motion to remand, Brown contends that she first served Amazon on January 11, 2023 and again on January 20, 2023. Because Amazon did not file a responsive pleading in the state court proceeding within 21 days of service, Brown appears to argue that Amazon was in default in state court at the time the notice of removal was filed and that, as a result, the notice of removal is in some way defective or improper. See Mot. to Remand at 1 (). But “[a]n entry of default or default judgment in state court does not prevent removal of an action to federal court.”[4] Wasmuth v. Das, No. 1:11CV1013, 2013 WL 3461686, at *6 (M.D. N.C. July 9, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 4519020 (Aug. 26, 2013), aff'd, 562 Fed.Appx. 177 (4th Cir. 2014); see also Hawes v. Cart Prods., Inc., 386 F.Supp.2d 681, 686 (D.S.C. 2005) (). Amazon's failure to file a responsive pleading in state court does not prevent its removal of the action to federal court.
The Court also finds that Amazon's notice of removal was timely. In general, defendants must file their notice of removal of a civil action “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Amazon's notice of removal, filed on February 10, 2023, was timely filed regardless of whether Amazon was served on January 11, 2023 (30 days) or January 20, 2023 (21 days).
Brown also appears to argue that state court is the proper forum because Amazon has a “second Headquarters” in Arlington, Virginia. (Dkt. No. 6 at 2). As discussed above, a defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court if the case could have originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Original jurisdiction exists where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, Brown seeks more than $75,000 in her Complaint and there appears to be complete diversity, as Brown alleges she is a Virginia citizen and Amazon is a Washington citizen for purposes of diversity. See (Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶ 6). A corporation is deemed a citizen “of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its principal place of business ....” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Cent. W.Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, 636 F.3d 101, 102 (4th Cir. 2011).
A corporation's principal place of business is “where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010). To determine the principal place of business, courts consider where the corporation maintains its headquarters and the extent to which the headquarters functions as a “nerve center” for the corporation. Id. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. has established that it is incorporated in Delaware and that its headquarters, which functions as the company's “nerve center,” is in Washington state. See (Dkt. No. 17 at 7).
The Court finds Amazon's removal to be proper, and Brown's Motion to Remand is denied.
1. The Virginia Workers' Compensation Act
Because the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (“the Act”) provides the exclusive remedy for employee injury, including death, arising out of workplace conditions the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Brown's wrongful death claim. The Act “exclude[s] all other rights and remedies of such employee, h[er] personal representative,...
To continue reading
Request your trial