Hartley v. CSX Transpotation, No. 98-2742
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Charles E. Simons, Jr.; Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING; WILKINSON |
| Citation | 187 F.3d 422 |
| Parties | (4th Cir. 1999) LIDY J. HARTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TOWN OF ALLENDALE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants-Appellees. LIDY J. HARTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TOWN OF ALLENDALE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants-Appellees. (). . Argued: |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1210,CA-98-1396-1-6,No. 98-2742 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1999 |
Page 422
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TOWN OF ALLENDALE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants-Appellees.
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TOWN OF ALLENDALE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: August 4, 1999.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Page 423
COUNSEL ARGUED: John E. Parker, PETERS, MURDAUGH, PARKER, ELTZROTH & DETRICK, P.A., Hampton, South Carolina, for Appellant. John Arthur Davidson, FULCHER, HAGLER, REED, HANKS & HARPER, L.L.P., Augusta, Georgia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Ronnie L. Crosby, PETERS, MURDAUGH, PARKER, ELTZROTH & DETRICK, P.A., Hampton, South Carolina; H. Woodrow Gooding, GOODING & GOODING, Allendale, South Carolina, for Appellant. L. Dean Best, FULCHER, HAGLER, REED, HANKS & HARPER, L.L.P., Augusta, Georgia; Pete Kulmala, HARVEY & KULMALA, Barnwell, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge King joined.
WILKINSON, Chief Judge:
A South Carolina citizen filed a tort action in South Carolina state court against a Virginia railroad corporation and two South Carolina government entities. The railroad removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, claiming that the government defendants were fraudulently joined. The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. Because there is at least some possibility that plaintiff will recover against the government defendants, we reverse.
I.
Lidy J. Hartley is a South Carolina citizen whose automobile collided with a train at an Allendale, South Carolina railroad crossing in July 1997. She filed suit in the Allendale County Court of Common Pleas against CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX), the South Carolina Department of Transportation
Page 424
(SCDOT), and the Town of Allendale, South Carolina (Town). Hartley alleged, among other things, that the SCDOT was negligent in maintaining an unsafe crossing, in failing to inspect the crossing adequately, and in failing to maintain proper markings on the roadway near the crossing. She also alleged that the Town was negligent in maintaining its property and in failing to warn the public of the obstructed view at the crossing.
CSX removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on the basis of diversity of citizenship. With the government defendants joined, there is incomplete diversity between plaintiff and defendants, and federal jurisdiction will not attach. On the other hand, if the government defendants are dismissed, then diversity jurisdiction will lie. CSX contended that the SCDOT and the Town were sham defendants that Hartley had named solely for the purpose of defeating diversity.
Hartley filed a motion to remand the case to state court on the ground that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, holding that South Carolina's public duty rule precluded Hartley's claims against the SCDOT and the Town. Hartley then filed this interlocutory appeal.
II.
CSX argues that diversity jurisdiction exists because the SCDOT and the Town are not proper defendants in this action. The district court agreed, holding that the government defendants were fraudulently joined because they could not be liable as a matter of law under the public duty rule. That rule provides that "public officials are generally not liable to individuals for their negligence in discharging public duties because the duty is owed to the public at large rather than to anyone individually." Wells v. City of Lynchburg, 501 S.E.2d 746, 751-52 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998).
We disagree with the district court. To show fraudulent joinder, the removing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells' Dairy v. American Indus. Refrigeration, No. C 01-4052-MWB.
...to the plaintiff than the standard applicable to a ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 424 (4th Cir.1999) ("The party alleging fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden — it must show that the plaintiff cannot establish a claim ev......
-
Cross Country Bank v. McGraw, No. CIV.A.2:04-0306.
...They function to steer litigation to the proper forum with a minimum of preliminary fuss." Id. (quoting Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Therefore, this Court GRANTS the Attorney General's motion to remand (Doc. 8) and REMANDS the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha Cou......
-
Pecorino v. Vutec Corp., 11-CV-6312 (ADS)(ARL)
...review of the record, but make clear that the district court should not make a decision on the merits. See Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Cir. 1999); Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997). There is also a line of cases specific to the patent context, i......
-
Sutton Woodworking Mach. v. Mereen-Johnson Mach., No. CIV. 1:03CV01133.
...relationship with Group Seven and Mereen-Johnson's liability for the alleged acts of Group Seven. See Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Cir.1999)(explaining that a jurisdictional inquiry is not the appropriate stage of litigation to resolve various and uncertain questions......
-
Wells' Dairy v. American Indus. Refrigeration, No. C 01-4052-MWB.
...to the plaintiff than the standard applicable to a ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 424 (4th Cir.1999) ("The party alleging fraudulent joinder bears a heavy burden — it must show that the plaintiff cannot establish a claim ev......
-
Priselac v. The Chemours Co., 7:20-CV-190-D
...there "is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action" against Long. Hartley v. CSX Transp.. Inc.. 187 F.3d 422, 424 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis omitted). Priselac alleges that Long "directs and manages all plant operations with overall responsibilities for ......
-
Cross Country Bank v. McGraw, No. CIV.A.2:04-0306.
...They function to steer litigation to the proper forum with a minimum of preliminary fuss." Id. (quoting Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Therefore, this Court GRANTS the Attorney General's motion to remand (Doc. 8) and REMANDS the case to the Circuit Court of Kanawha Cou......
-
Pecorino v. Vutec Corp., 11-CV-6312 (ADS)(ARL)
...review of the record, but make clear that the district court should not make a decision on the merits. See Hartley v. CSX Transp., Inc., 187 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Cir. 1999); Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997). There is also a line of cases specific to the patent context, i......