Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00603/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00603-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 49:30112 Motor Vehicle Safety

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES L. BROWN and HATTIE BUGGS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-00603-WHA 

 ) (WO) 

 ) 

CHRISTOPER L. SIMMS, individually, and ) 

MAGNETICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; et ) 

al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This cause is before the court on a Motion to Remand (Doc. # 10) filed by the Plaintiffs, 

James L. Brown and Hattie Buggs, on September 9, 2013. 

 The Plaintiff originally filed a Complaint in this case in the Circuit Court of Lowndes 

County, Alabama on July 24, 2013. The Plaintiff brings state claims for negligent operation of a 

tanker trunk (First Cause of Action) and wanton operation of a tanker truck (Second Cause of 

Action). 

 On August 23, 2013, the Defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of 

federal-question jurisdiction. 

 For reasons to be discussed, the Motion to Remand is due to be GRANTED. 

II. MOTION TO REMAND STANDARD 

Case 2:13-cv-00603-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 5
2 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (1994); Wymbs v. 

Republican State Exec. Comm., 719 F.2d 1072, 1076 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 

1103 (1984). As such, federal courts only have the power to hear cases that they have been 

authorized to hear by the Constitution or the Congress of the United States. See Kokkonen, 511 

U.S. at 377. Because federal court jurisdiction is limited, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of 

removed cases where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear. See Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095. 

 

III. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiffs James Brown and Hattie Buggs’ vehicle collided with a 

tanker truck while traveling through Lowndes County on Interstate 65. The tanker truck was 

driven by Defendant Christopher Simms, allegedly within the scope of his employment or 

agency for Defendant Magnetics International, Inc. After filing a Complaint in Lowndes County, 

the Plaintiffs served the Defendants various requests for production, a number of which make 

reference to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s regulations (“FMCSR”). In light 

of these discovery requests, the Defendants removed the case to this court. In their motion to 

remand, Plaintiffs have asked for the case to be remanded to state court because this court lacks 

federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 

 IV. DISCUSSION

 The Defendants acknowledge that the Complaint is limited to state law claims, but 

contend that federal jurisdiction exists because the Plaintiffs’ right to relief on those claims 

depends on the construction of federal law. 

Case 2:13-cv-00603-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 10/09/13 Page 2 of 5
3 

Federal courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Such federal-question 

jurisdiction may be based on a civil action alleging a violation of the Constitution, or asserting a 

federal cause of action established by a congressionally created expressed or implied private 

remedy for violations of a federal statute.” Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir. 1998) 

(citing City of Huntsville v. City of Madison, 24 F.3d 169, 171–72 (11th Cir. 1994)). “Although 

the vast majority of cases that fall within such federal-question jurisdiction are cases that arise 

under federal law that creates a cause of action, in limited circumstances, federal-question 

jurisdiction may also be available if a substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary 

element of a state cause of action.” Id.

 In Jairath, a physician refused to perform cosmetic surgery on an HIV-positive patient. 

The patient brought an action under Georgia state law, but the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) “created the duty which served as the basis for Jairath’s state law claim.” Id. at 1281. 

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit only reviewed the district court’s refusal to remand the 

plaintiff’s action to state court. In finding that the district court had erred and that remand was 

warranted, the Eleventh Circuit pointed out that, while the “state law cause of action incorporates 

as an element proof of a violation of a federal duty[, the plaintiff] sought a private damages 

remedy which is not available under the federal statute.” Id. at 1283. Thus, as in the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Merrell Dow, the Eleventh Circuit concluded “that the congressional intent 

not to provide a private damages remedy for [that] kind of ADA violation [was] ‘tantamount to a 

congressional conclusion that the presence of a claimed violation of the statute as an element of a 

state cause of action is insufficiently “substantial” to confer federal-question jurisdiction.’” Id. at 

1284 (quoting Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 814 (1986)). 

Case 2:13-cv-00603-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 10/09/13 Page 3 of 5
4 

As a preliminary matter, the Defendants argue that removal is timely based on the 

discovery requests at issue in this case being “other paper” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b)(3). Specifically, the Defendants cite Lowery v. Alabama Power Company, 483 F.3d 

1184, 1212 (11th Cir. 2007), for the proposition that the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are “other 

paper” that identify the case as removable and that thus allow an additional thirty days for 

removal. The court assumes without deciding that these discovery requests are “other paper” that 

would identify the case as removable subsequent to the initial pleading. However, even assuming 

the discovery requests qualify as “other paper,” this court still lacks federal-question jurisdiction 

over the claims. 

First, the Defendants do not assert that this case falls under the first form of federalquestion jurisdiction, namely that the case “arise[s] under federal law that creates a cause of 

action.” Jairath, 154 F.3d at 1282. Upon seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden of 

establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 

876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, because the Defendants in this case have not met their burden to 

show the first form of federal-question jurisdiction, the case does not “arise under federal law 

that creates a cause of action.” Jairath, 154 F.3d at 1282. 

 Second, this case provides an even weaker case for substantiality than in Jairath. Here, 

the Defendants do not point to any federal statutory scheme or cause of action used by the 

Plaintiffs. Instead, the Defendants only rely on the Plaintiffs’ requests for the Defendants’ 

FMCSR-compliant records. However, as in Jairath, the Plaintiffs at most are seeking the 

FMCSR records as evidence to help establish a breach of the state law duty of care or some other 

element in their state law claims. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages through state law claims, 

they are not asserting a claim under the Federal Motor Carrier Act or other federal statute, and 

Case 2:13-cv-00603-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 10/09/13 Page 4 of 5
5 

thus any reference to the FMCSR-compliant materials is insufficiently “substantial” to confer 

federal-question jurisdiction. Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 814. Therefore, this court does not have 

federal-question jurisdiction, and the case is due to be remanded to state court. 

 IV. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, 

It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama, and the Clerk 

is DIRECTED to take appropriate action to effect the remand. 

 DONE this 9th day of October, 2013. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00603-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 10/09/13 Page 5 of 5