Andrews v. Mv Transportation Inc. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    __________________________________________
    )
    RONNIE ANDREWS, et al.,                   )
    )
    Plaintiffs,       )
    )
    v.                            )                    Civil Action No. 11-1089 (ESH)
    )
    MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.,                  )
    )
    Defendant.        )
    __________________________________________)
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand or in the Alternative to Stay
    Proceedings. (Mar. 22, 2013 [ECF No. 51].)
    Given the procedural posture of this case, the Court has decided that the federal case
    should not proceed while the related case of Andrews et al. v. MV Transportation et al., No. 11-
    8681, which is based on identical facts, is pending before the D.C. Superior Court. There are
    currently eight plaintiffs in this matter (one of whom is recently deceased), but roughly sixty
    plaintiffs in Superior Court. Moreover, discovery closed in this case on December 17, 2012,
    without the driver’s deposition ever having been taken. Although discovery has also closed in
    the Superior Court case, plaintiffs there have filed a motion to extend discovery, through which
    they hope to obtain additional documents and depositions. The Court does not believe that the
    relatively small subset of plaintiffs involved in this matter should essentially take the lead so as
    to overshadow the pending suit in Superior Court. After indicating as much at a status
    conference held on April 11, 2013, the Court sought additional briefing from the parties on
    1
    whether the more appropriate course of action would be to remand this matter to the Superior
    Court to be merged with the matter pending there, or to simply stay the case before this Court
    until resolution of the Superior Court case.
    Plaintiffs have asserted their willingness and intention to stipulate that no individual
    plaintiff’s damages would exceed $75,000, thereby divesting this Court of diversity jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a) and permitting remand under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (c). (See Reply to
    Defendant’s Supplemental Response, Apr. 24, 2013 [ECF No. 56] (“Suppl. Reply”) at 3-4.)
    Defendant insists that plaintiffs’ counsel is not capable of binding all of the current plaintiffs to
    any such stipulation, and that a stay would therefore be the most appropriate course of action.
    (Defendant’s Supplemental Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Apr. 19, 2013 [ECF
    No. 55].)
    The Court agrees with defendant. Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, it is unclear whether
    plaintiffs’ counsel in fact has the authority to bind all the current plaintiffs to such a stipulation.
    Specifically, plaintiff Clarence Holbrook passed away sometime before December 9, 2012, and
    his counsel has informed the Court on multiple occasions that he has had no contact with Mr.
    Holbrook’s estate. Plaintiffs’ counsel is aware of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25, which states that if a party
    dies and a motion for substitution is not made “within 90 days after service of a statement noting
    the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
    However, he misconstrues its language by suggesting that the 90-day window that triggers
    dismissal of Mr. Holbrook’s claim has “already elapsed.” (Suppl. Reply at 5.) While 90 days
    may have passed since Mr. Holbrook’s death, neither party has served “a statement noting the
    death,” as required by Rule 25, and thus, the 90-day window in fact has not yet been triggered.
    With Mr. Holbrook still a party to this litigation and his counsel having admitted his inability to
    2
    bind Mr. Holbrook or his estate to the stipulation (see 
    id. at 4
    ), the Court concludes that it cannot
    remand this entire case to the D.C. Superior Court. 1
    Accordingly, the Court will stay this matter pending resolution of the related Superior
    Court case, Civil Action No. 11-8681, and this case will be administratively closed during that
    time. Defendant will not be able to raise any defense based on the statute of limitations
    attributable to the time during which this case is stayed. Plaintiffs are instructed to notify the
    Court upon conclusion of the Superior Court case if they want to reopen this matter. A separate
    Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    /s/
    ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
    United States District Judge
    Date: April 30, 2013
    1
    The Court is also cognizant of the fact that this Circuit has not yet opined on the continued
    viability of St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 
    303 U.S. 283
     (1938), which held
    that “events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable . . . do not
    oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has attached,” 
    id. at 293
    , in light of the updated text of
    the remand statute, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1447
    (c), which now provides that a case must be remanded if “at
    any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
    § 1447(c) (emphasis added).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2011-1089

Judges: Judge Ellen S. Huvelle

Filed Date: 4/30/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014