Ryan v. Schneider Nat. Carriers

• Decision Date: 28 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-2996,00-2996
• Citation: 263 F.3d 816
• Parties: (8th Cir. 2001) Kristopher Ryan, a minor, by and through his next friends, Harvey Ryan and Hope Ryan; Plaintiff-Appellant, Harvey Ryan; Plaintiff, Hope Ryan, individually and as heir-at-law of Howard Keller, deceased; Elaine Galloway; Mark Ring; Diana Ring, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Submitted:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 816

263 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2001)

Kristopher Ryan, a minor, by and through his next friends, Harvey Ryan and Hope Ryan; Plaintiff-Appellant, Harvey Ryan; Plaintiff, Hope Ryan, individually and as heir-at-law of Howard Keller, deceased; Elaine Galloway; Mark Ring; Diana Ring, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Submitted: March 28, 2001

Filed: August 27, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This lawsuit arises from a vehicle collision on a Missouri interstate highway, and presents an issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are the driver and passengers of a recreational vehicle (RV) that rear-ended a Missouri Department of Transportation (MDOT) truck. Before the collision, a tractor-trailer (semi) owned by Schneider National Carriers, Inc. was between the RV and the MDOT truck. Schneider's semi pulled out of the lane to avoid the slow-moving MDOT vehicle, and the RV hit the MDOT vehicle, killing two and seriously injuring the others in the RV.

The plaintiffs initially filed a petition in Missouri state court against Schneider and its unidentified driver. In the petition, Harvey Ryan, his wife, Hope Ryan, their son, Kristopher Ryan, and Diana and Mark Ring alleged Schneider's driver was negligent in failing to warn of the impending dangerous slow-moving MDOT vehicle. Hope Ryan and her sister, Elaine Galloway, also alleged the wrongful death of their father, Howard Keller. Because the Ryans and Galloway are Oklahoma residents, the Rings are Texas residents, and Schneider is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin, Schneider removed the case to federal court alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332. Schneider also filed an answer to the petition asserting a counterclaim against Harvey Ryan, the RV's driver, for negligence. In the first amended complaint, Hope Ryan, Kristopher Ryan, and the Rings reasserted their negligence claims against Schneider and its driver, and added negligence claims against the MDOT truck driver, a Missouri resident. Harvey Ryan did not assert any claims. Hope Ryan and Elaine Galloway reasserted their wrongful death claims. In answering the first amended complaint, Schneider again alleged Harvey Ryan's negligence caused the plaintiffs' injuries. Hope Ryan, Kristopher Ryan, Elaine Galloway, and the Rings then filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding Harvey Ryan as a defendant. Schneider opposed the motion, asserting that since Harvey Ryan had not sought leave to dismiss his individual claims against Schneider, he remained a plaintiff in the action, and the other plaintiffs' claims against him should be designated as cross-claims. Schneider also filed a motion to dismiss asserting its driver owed no duty to the RV under Missouri law. The district court^* granted the plaintiffs leave to amend to add cross-claims against Harvey Ryan.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court contending the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both Hope Ryan and Harvey Ryan are residents of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs asserted that whether the claims against Harvey Ryan are designated cross-claims or not, there is not complete diversity of citizenship when the court looks beyond the pleadings and arranges the parties according to their sides in the dispute. In opposing the motion, Schneider argued there is complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants, and the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' cross-claim against Harvey Ryan under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). Harvey Ryan filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, and Schneider opposed the motion, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (after defendant files answer, action shall be dismissed at plaintiff's request only by order of court and if court deems proper).

The district court granted Schneider's motion to dismiss, concluding Missouri law does not impose a duty on lead drivers to either warn following drivers of approaching dangers or to keep a constant lookout for the safety of following vehicles. Because there was no longer any opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to remand, the district court remanded the action back to the original state court. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment asserting the district court lost subject matter jurisdiction when it allowed the cross-claim against Harvey Ryan. The district court denied the motion.

Before we consider the merits of the plaintiffs' appeal, we must decide whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), district courts have original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions when the matter in controversy exceeds $ 75,000, without considering interest and costs, and when the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from the citizenship of each defendant. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 136 L. Ed. 2d 437, 117 S. Ct. 467 (1996). In the case of a removed action, diversity must exist both when the state petition is filed and when the petition for removal is filed. See 28 U.S.C. 1447(e); Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 49-50, 39 L. Ed. 889, 15 S. Ct. 751 (1895). At the time of the state petition and the petition for removal in this case, diversity jurisdiction existed. All plaintiffs were citizens of different states than all defendants. Although federal courts must look beyond the pleadings and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute, later events do not deprive a court of jurisdiction over parties who were properly aligned in the first instance. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 367 F.2d 866, 870-71 (8th Cir. 1966). Here, the parties were properly aligned at the time of the state petition and petition for removal. Harvey Ryan was injured in the accident and like the other plaintiffs sought to recover for his injuries from Schneider. The plaintiffs other than Harvey...