Range Oil Supply Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R. Co.

• Citation: 140 F. Supp. 283
• Decision Date: 01 May 1956
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 5354.
• Parties: RANGE OIL SUPPLY COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Complainant-Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

140 F. Supp. 283

RANGE OIL SUPPLY COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, Complainant-Appellant, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee.

Civ. No. 5354.

United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

May 1, 1956.

Gordon Rosenmeier, Little Falls, Minn., for complainant-appellant.

Philip Stringer, St. Paul, Minn., for respondent-appellee.

DEVITT, District Judge.

This is a motion to remand a removed action to the State Courts.

It began as a proceeding before the Minnesota Railroad and Warehouse Commission in which complainant invoked Minnesota Statutes Annotated, §§ 230.09, 230.10 and 230.11. These statutes provide in essence that any person or corporation shall have the right to use a portion of a railroad right of way as a site for a public warehouse or elevator upon payment of reasonable compensation therefor. If the parties disagree on the site to be subjected to use or upon the compensation therefor, the party seeking the site may file a complaint with the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission. The Commission has the power to establish the site or to fix the compensation therefor if it finds the complainant entitled thereto.

Complainant filed its verified complaint with the Commission and requested an order establishing a site for a public warehouse on the right of way of the respondent railroad in Minneapolis, Minnesota. After notice and hearing, the State Commission found facts adverse to complainant and dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed to the State District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, but before the matter could be heard on appeal, respondent petitioned for removal of the cause to this court.

Respondent railroad, a Delaware corporation, alleges, as a jurisdictional basis, diversity of citizenship and that the matter in controversy involves over $3,000. Complainant moves to remand the proceeding to the State District Court.

The provisions governing removal of actions to the Federal District Courts are embodied in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441:

"(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any 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 or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

"(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought."

This proceeding does not involve a claim or right arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. All other requirements for removal having been met, the only issues presented here are (1) whether this controversy is a "civil action" within the meaning of Section 1441(a) and (2) whether this controversy is one of which the federal courts have original jurisdiction.

Considering these issues in inverse order, we refer to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 to determine whether this controversy is one of which this court has original jurisdiction:

"(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

"(1) citizens of different States * * *."

Is there the requisite jurisdictional amount? The test of the jurisdictional amount is the value of the use of the property of which the respondent railroad may be deprived of by complainant's action. Ross v. Southern Ry. Co., D.C.S.C.1937, 20 F.Supp. 556. This case involves the use of a plot of ground measuring about 100 feet by 130 feet. The value of the exclusive use of this land, for what may well be an indeterminable length of time, is well over the requisite jurisdictional amount, although such value may be incapable of...