Estate of Pickard v. Wisconsin Central Ltd.
Decision Date | 30 December 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 02-C-0282-C.,02-C-0282-C. |
Citation | 300 F.Supp.2d 776 |
Parties | Estate of Ashleigh PICKARD, by its personal representatives, Constance and Matthew PICKARD, Constance Pickard and Matthew Pickard, Plaintiffs, and Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund, Involuntary Plaintiff, v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
H. James Tuchscherer, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, Kevin T. Roach, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiffs.
James A. Fletcher, Fletcher & Sippel, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
This is a civil action in which plaintiffs are suing defendant Wisconsin Central Ltd. for the wrongful death of Ashleigh Pickard. Defendant's train collided with Pickard's automobile while she was driving across a railroad crossing in Portage County, Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs filed this action originally in the Circuit Court for Portage County and apparently named Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund as an involuntary plaintiff because of Central States' subrogation interest in any potential recovery in this lawsuit. According to the record, no party questioned the state court as to Central States' presence as an involuntary plaintiff.
On May 20, 2002, defendant removed the case to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Although plaintiff did not contest defendant's removal, the court has an independent obligation to insure that diversity jurisdiction exists. See Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., 292 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.2002).
The parties have briefed defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, because the parties lack complete diversity, I cannot proceed to the merits of defendant's motion. Instead, I must remand this cause of action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
OPINIONPlaintiff Estate of Ashleigh Pickard is an estate filed in Portage County, Wisconsin. Plaintiffs Matthew and Constance Pickard, the parents of Ashleigh Pickard, are citizens of Wisconsin. Involuntary plaintiff Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund's principal place of business is in Rosemont, Illinois. (The record does not reveal involuntary plaintiff's state of incorporation.) Defendant Wisconsin Central Ltd. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Rosemont, Illinois.
As is evident, the question whether complete diversity exists among the parties arises because involuntary plaintiff and defendant are both citizens of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. City of Sheboygan Falls, 713 F.2d 1261, 1264 (7th Cir.1983) ( ). Defendant acknowledges this problem in a footnote in its notice of removal, arguing that as plaintiffs' "insurance" provider, involuntary plaintiff is a nominal party and, thus, its citizenship is not relevant to determining diversity. See Notice of Removal, dkt. # 2, at 2 n. 1. Therefore, the threshold question is whether defendant is correct in its contention that involuntary plaintiff is a nominal party.
It is true that for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, courts look only to parties "who are real and substantial parties to the controversy." Navarro Savings Association v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980); Betar v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd., 603 F.2d 30, 32 (7th Cir.1979) (); Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a) (). In support of its contention that involuntary plaintiff is a nominal party, defendant cites summarily two cases, Eichmann v. Hunter Automated Machinery, Inc., 167 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1072 (E.D.Wis.2001), and Vandervest v. Wisconsin Central Ltd., 936 F.Supp. 601, 604-05 (E.D.Wis.1996).
In Eichmann, the plaintiff (a Wisconsin citizen) named her husband's employer (a Wisconsin corporation) as a defendant in her lawsuit for the wrongful death of her husband. Eichmann, 167 F.Supp.2d. at 1071. The court explained that "a real-party-in-interest defendant is one who, according to applicable substantive law, has the duty sought to be enforced or enjoined." Id. at 1072 (emphasis in original) (citing Moore's Federal Practice 3d, § 102.15). Because plaintiff's exclusive remedy against her husband's employer was under workers' compensation and not wrongful death, the court held that the employer was a nominal defendant because it could not be held liable for the alleged wrongful death claim. Id. Unlike the situation in Eichmann, involuntary plaintiff's role in this lawsuit relates to its subrogation interest in any potential recovery. Moreover, plaintiff is not pursuing any remedies against involuntary plaintiff. Therefore, the holding in Eichmann is inapplicable to this case.
In Vandervest, a lawsuit nearly identical to this case, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury claim against the defendant in state court for injuries arising from a train accident. Vandervest, 936 F.Supp. at 602. The plaintiffs also named their automobile and medical insurers as defendants solely because of the insurers' subrogation interest. Id. at 604-05. The defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 602. The plaintiffs contested removal, arguing that because the defendant insurers were citizens of the same state as the plaintiffs, diversity was lacking. Id. at 604. The court held that "[a] defendant is a nominal party if there is no reasonable basis for predicting that it will be held liable." Id. (citing Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc., 994 F.2d 364, 369 (7th Cir.1993)). The court concluded that because the defendant insurers could not be held liable, they were nominal parties and their citizenship did not destroy diversity. Id.
Although I agree with the result in Vandervest, I disagree with its reasoning. Specifically, the court should have realigned the defendant insurers as plaintiffs because their interests were not adverse to the plaintiffs' and the plaintiffs had not asserted any claims against them. See City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 80, 62 S.Ct. 15, 86 L.Ed. 47 (1941) ( ); see also American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Trane Co., 657 F.2d 146, 149 (7th Cir.1981) (); Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir.2000) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paragon Tank Truck Equip., LLC v. Parish Truck Sales, Inc.
...basis for predicting that it will be held liable" to Paragon, making it a nominal party. Estate of Pickard ex rel. Pickard v. Wis. Central Ltd., 300 F. Supp. 2d 776, 778 (W.D. Wis. 2002) (quoting Vandervest v. Wis. Central Ltd., 936 F. Supp. 601, 604 (E.D. Wis. 1996)). Thus, Vaczilla's citi......
-
Chidester-Roesch v. Camp Douglas Farmers Coop.
...plaintiff's. American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Trane Co., 657 F.2d 146, 151 (7th Cir. 1981); Estate of Pickard ex rel. Pickard v. Wisconsin Central Ltd., 300 F. Supp. 2d 776 (W.D. Wis. 2002). If the only reason plaintiff named United Healthcare is that it may be entitled to reimbursement ......
-
Pepsico Do Brasil, Ltda v. Oxy-Dry Corp.
...partial subrogation forces a look at both subrogee and subrogor — that is the teaching in Aetna Cas. (see also Pickard v. Wis. Central, Ltd., 300 F.Supp.2d 776, 778 (W.Wis.2002)). In this instance Pepsico's counsel identifies Brazilian insurer MAPFRE Insurance Company as having issued the r......
-
Craig v. Maxx Orthopedics, Inc., Case No. 15-CV-294
...thePage 3 court must consider their citizenship to determine whether complete diversity exists. Estate of Pickard v. Wis. Cent., Ltd., 300 F. Supp. 2d 776, 778-79 (W.D. Wis. 2002). The complaint does not explicitly identify the citizenship of the involuntary plaintiffs. The first paragraph ......