Shelton v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2022
• Docket Number: 22-cv-138-DWD
• Parties: CINDY SHELTON, as plenary guardian of the person and estate of Cody Confer, a disabled person, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, VILLAGE OF BONNIE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MICHAEL WEBB, ZACHARY GILLESPIE, and JAMES FARMER, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

CINDY SHELTON, as plenary guardian of the person and estate of Cody Confer, a disabled person, Plaintiff,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, VILLAGE OF BONNIE, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MICHAEL WEBB, ZACHARY GILLESPIE, and JAMES FARMER, Defendants.

No. 22-cv-138-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this removed matter, Plaintiff Cindy Shelton, as Plenary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Cody Conger, a disabled person, seeks recovery of damages on behalf of Cody Confer following the injuries he sustained after his vehicle was struck by a train in Jefferson County, Illinois. This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois against Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Union Pacific Corporation (Doc. 1-5). Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company removed the case to this Court asserting of federal diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 1).

1

On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint against Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Union Pacific Corporation, and also joins New Defendants, the County of Jefferson, Illinois, Village of Bonnie, Illinois, Michael Webb, Zachary Gillespie, and James Farmer as additional defendants (Doc. 28).^[1] In conducting a sua sponte review of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court observes that federal subject jurisdiction may be lacking in this case as a result of Plaintiff's amendment and joinder of these New Defendants. See Foster v. Hill, 497 F.3d 695, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2007) ("It is the responsibility of a court to make an independent evaluation of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case."); see also Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010) ("Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it"); Johnson v. Wattenbarger, 361 F.3d 991, 992 (7th Cir. 2004) (a district court's "first duty in every suit" is "to determine the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction").

The exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction in diversity requires generally, that the parties to a case be of diverse state citizenship and that an amount in excess of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, be in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 547 (7th...