Smallwood v. Illinois Central R. Co., CIV.A.3:01-CV-561BN.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.3:01-CV-561BN.,CIV.A.3:01-CV-561BN.
• Citation: 203 F.Supp.2d 686
• Parties: Kelli SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY and The Mississippi Department Of Transportation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

203 F.Supp.2d 686

Kelli SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY and The Mississippi Department Of Transportation, Defendants.

No. CIV.A.3:01-CV-561BN.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

March 15, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Pat M. Barrett, Jr., Barrett Law Offices, Lexington, Cynthia H. Speetjens, Frazer Davidson, P.A., Jackson, for Kelli Smallwood, plaintiffs.

Charles T. Ozier, Chad M. Knight, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Susan L. Runnels, Heidelberg & Woodliff, Jackson, for Illinois Central Railroad Company, Mississippi Department of Transportation, defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

BARBOUR, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Motion of Plaintiff to Remand. The Court has considered the motion, response, rebuttal, attachments to each, and supporting and opposing authority and finds that the motion is not well taken and should be denied.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

On June 23, 2000, Plaintiff was injured when a locomotive operated by Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company ("IRC") struck the automobile in which she was traveling. The incident occurred at Mississippi Department of Transportation ("MDOT") railroad crossing number 305451Y located at Highway 469, Florence, Mississippi.

On June 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District of the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging claims of negligence against IRC and MDOT. At the time of the accident, the railroad crossing was equipped with automatic, flashing warning lights which had been installed using federal funds. Plaintiff first alleges negligence on the part of the MDOT arising from its failure to install automatic gates at the subject crossing despite its knowledge that the crossing was "unreasonably dangerous and extraordinarily hazardous." Complaint, ¶ 8. This "failure to install gates" claim, which challenges the adequacy of the warning devices at the subject railroad crossing, is only alleged against the MDOT. Plaintiff next alleges that IRC "received authorization and direction from the MDOT to construct gates at the subject crossing on or about December 13, 1999," the cost for which was to be paid by the MDOT. Id., ¶ 11. Plaintiff further alleges that despite this authorization, direction and funding, the automatic gates were not installed prior to the date on which she was injured. Based, in part, on these assertions, Plaintiff alleges a "negligent delay in gate installation" claim against both IRC and the MDOT.

On July 20, 2001, Defendant IRC removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the purpose of diversity analysis, Defendant IRC is a corporate citizen of, and has its primary place of business in, the State of Illinois. Plaintiff and Defendant the MDOT are both citizens of the State of Mississippi. IRC, however, contends that Plaintiff has fraudulently joined the non-diverse Defendant and, therefore, the Court may properly assert federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case. IRC further contends that although the state court complaint does not specify the total amount of damages sought by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff seek greater than the requisite amount of $75,000.00. Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. The Motion of Plaintiff to Remand is presently before the Court.

II. Fraudulent Joinder Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed ... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." The removing party has the burden of proving that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the case. See Jernigan v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 868, 114 S.Ct. 192, 126 L.Ed.2d 150 (1993); Laughlin v. Prudential Ins. Co., 882 F.2d 187, 190 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that the "removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction."). In cases in which the removing party alleges diversity of citizenship jurisdiction on the basis of fraudulent joinder, "it has the burden of proving the fraud." Laughlin, 882 F.2d at 190; Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 893 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 817, 111 S.Ct. 60, 112 L.Ed.2d 35 (1990). To establish fraudulent joinder, the removing party must prove: (1) that there was actual fraud in the plaintiff's pleading of the jurisdictional facts or (2) that the plaintiff has no possibility of establishing a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant in state court. Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694, 699 (5th Cir.1999) (citations omitted); Burden v. General Dynamics Corp., 60 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir.1995); Cavallini v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir.1995).

When considering whether a non-diverse defendant has been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, courts should "pierce the pleadings" and consider "summary judgment-type evidence such as affidavits and deposition testimony." See e.g. Cavallini, 44 F.3d at 256. See also LeJeune v. Shell Oil Co., 950 F.2d 267, 271 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that "a removing party's claim of fraudulent joinder to destroy diversity is viewed as similar to a motion for summary judgment.... A court is to pierce the pleadings to determine whether, under controlling state law, the non-removing party has a valid claim against the non-diverse parties."). Under this standard, plaintiffs "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [their] pleadings." Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir.2000). See also Badon v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 236 F.3d 282, 286 n. 4 (5th Cir.2000) (finding that the "mere theoretical possibility of recovery under local law" does not preclude removal. Plaintiffs must show that there exists "a reasonable basis for predicting that state law would allow recovery in order to preclude a finding of fraudulent joinder."). Further, conclusory or generic allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the non-diverse defendant are not sufficient to show that that defendant was not fraudulently joined. See Badon v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 392-93 (5th Cir.2000); Peters v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 164 F.Supp.2d 830, 834 (S.D.Miss. 2001) (J. Bramlette) (holding that the allegations against non-diverse defendants "must be factual, not conclusory, because conclusory allegations do not state a claim."). Therefore, when responding to a charge of fraudulent joinder, a plaintiff must allege specific acts of wrongdoing on the part of the non-diverse defendant in the complaint and submit evidence to support those claims. See Badon, 224 F.3d at 390 (holding that removal is not precluded merely because the state court complaint, on its face, sets forth a state law claim against a non-diverse defendant. Removal is proper "if the plaintiff's pleading is pierced and it is shown that as a matter of law there is no reasonable basis for predicting that the plaintiff might establish liability on that claim against the in-state defendant.").

When conducting a fraudulent joinder analysis, a court must resolve all disputed questions of fact and ambiguities of law in favor of the non-removing party, see Dodson v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 951 F.2d 40, 42 (5th Cir.1992), but "only when there exists an actual controversy, i.e. when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Badon, 224 F.3d at 394. A court should not, "in the absence of any proof, assume that the non-moving party could or would prove the necessary facts" to support his claims against the non-diverse defendant. Id. (citing Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994)) (alteration in original). In the event the court, after resolving all disputed questions of fact and ambiguities of law in favor of the non-removing party, finds that there is "arguably a reasonable basis for predicting that the state law might impose liability on the facts involved, then there is no fraudulent joinder" and hence no basis for asserting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Jernigan, 989 F.2d at 816.

III. Analysis

IRC does not allege that Plaintiff engaged in actual fraud in the pleading of the jurisdictional facts in this case. Further, IRC does not dispute that the MDOT is a citizen of the State of Mississippi for the purpose of diversity analysis. Instead, IRC argues that Plaintiff cannot establish a cognizable cause of action against the MDOT because the claims of negligence alleged against it in the complaint are preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 ("FRSA"), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20101, et seq.

The FRSA was enacted "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." 49 U.S.C. § 20101. To achieve these goals, the Secretary of Transportation is given broad power to "prescribe regulations and issue orders for every area of railroad safety." Id. at § 20103(a). The preemptive effect of the regulations promulgated under the FRSA is governed by the "savings and preemption clause" codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20106. Under this provision:

Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety until the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety when the law, regulation, or order

(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard;

(2) is not...