Day v. BNSF Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 January 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1248
• Parties: GEORGE KEITH DAY, ET AL. v. BNSF RAILWAY CO., ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

GEORGE KEITH DAY, ET AL.
v.
BNSF RAILWAY CO., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1248

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE-OPELOUSAS DIVISION

January 19, 2017

JUDGE DOHERTY

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Carol Whitehurst for Report and Recommendation. After an independent review of the record, including the objections filed herein, this Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's recommendation, with the following clarifications, and the instant matter is REMANDED to the 16^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia, Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike All Filings by Non-Party National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak [Doc. 42], which is herein DENIED AS MOOT, and defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief [Doc. 44], which is herein GRANTED. Defendants have also filed a Motion for Order Permitting Interlocutory Appeal [Doc. 33], which is DENIED.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

As noted by the magistrate judge in her Report, this cause of action arises out of a high-speed collision at a railroad crossing jointly maintained and owned by defendants BNSF and the DOTD and a train operated by defendants Brian Stanga, the engineer, and Tyrone Clark, the conductor, (collectively the "train crew"). The collision killed three children and two adults and severely injured one child. On July 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed suit in the 16^th Judicial District Court

Page 2

for the Parish of Iberia, Louisiana against BNSF, the State of Louisiana through DOTD, and Stanga and Clark.

On August 31, 2016, all four defendants, as well as National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") - an entity which was not sued in the plaintiff's petition - removed the matter to this Court. The removal notice argues that Amtrak is a real party in interest in the case by virtue of being the employer of the individual crew members named as defendants, and that, as such, this Court has original jurisdiction over the matter because Amtrak is a capital stock corporation created by or under an Act of Congress, 49 U.S.C. §24301, et seq., with more than 50% of the capital stock being owned by the United States of America. Ergo, the defendants argue the matter is removable to this Court on the basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Arguing Amtrak is not a party to the lawsuit, and therefore, does not have standing to remove the matter to federal court, the plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand [Doc. 10] seeking remand to the 16^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia, Louisiana. The magistrate judge agreed with the plaintiffs and found Amtrak lacks standing to remove the matter, and, therefore, recommends the matter be remanded to state court. Amtrak, BNSF, DOTD, and the individually named defendants object to the magistrate judge's Report.

II. Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), "[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report [and recommendation] or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Section 636(b)(1) further states "[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter

Page 3

to the magistrate judge with instructions." 23 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

III. Legal Analysis

As an initial matter, this Court notes there is a distinction between matters that come to this Court by way of procedural error and those that come to this Court by way of substantive issues. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, the party invoking subject matter jurisdiction in federal court has the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction. St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253-54 (5^th Cir. 1998). Thus, in the instant matter, the removing defendants must bear the burden to demonstrate that this Court has federal jurisdiction resulting from removal by Amtrak, a non-party. Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 893 F.2d 98, 100 (5^th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction "raises significant federalism concerns" and is strictly construed. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 855 F.2d 1160, 1164 (5^th Cir. 1988). This Court is mindful that doubts regarding jurisdiction should be resolved against exercising jurisdiction. Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5^th Cir. 2000).

The Court has reviewed and considered the Notice of Removal in this matter, purportedly filed by all of the defendants and Amtrak, a non-party. The defendants argue in their Objections that the magistrate judge erred in focusing on the standing of Amtrak to remove the matter, in light of the fact that all defendants joined in the removal notice. However, the defendants' argument on this point is misplaced. It appears the only mechanism for removal to this Court is by way of federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the case cannot be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction given the presence of non-diverse parties (the plaintiffs and DOTD). Without...