Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01444-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE )

CORPORATION, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1444 REC DLB

ORDER (1) DENYING STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION’S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION AND

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED,

(2) REMANDING ALL CLAIMS

AGAINST STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ONLY, (3) AND RETAINING

JURISDICTION OVER THE

REMAINING CLAIMS. 

On Monday, March 20, 2006, the Court heard Defendant State

of California, Department of Transportation’s (the “State”)

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and

Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (the

“Motion”). Upon due consideration of the written and oral

arguments of the parties and the record herein, the Court DENIES

the Motion and REMANDS all claims against the State, as set forth

herein.

I. Background

The facts of the case, as alleged in the Complaint, are as

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The other defendants listed in the Complaint are 1

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway Company, BNSF Railway Company, National Railroad

Passenger Corporation, Ernest Martinez, Fresno City College,

State Center Community College District, County of Fresno, City

Of Fresno, and Clardy Lee Mullin, Jr.

2

follows. Deondrae Marcquise Mullin (“Decedent”) was a student at

Fresno City College (“FCC”). On September 2, 2004, at

approximately 9:20 a.m., he was walking west on the north

sidewalk of Weldon Avenue west of Glenn Avenue. Weldon Avenue

forms the north border of the FCC campus. Train tracks that

traverse the Fresno City College campus cross Weldon Avenue and

the sidewalk on which Decedent was walking. As he crossed the

tracks, an Amtrak train struck and killed him.

On October 14, 2005, Plaintiff Georgina Shantell Thomas,

Decedent’s mother, filed her Complaint in Fresno County Superior

Court, seeking damages against the State and other defendants.1

On November 15, 2005, before the State had been served, the

defendants who had been served removed the case to this Court. 

On February 8, 2006, the State filed this Motion, along with

supporting declarations and a request for judicial notice. On

February 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to continue

proceedings on this motion to allow her to conduct further

discovery prior to the Court deciding a motion for summary

judgment. On March 1, 2006, the Court denied the continuance

based on the State’s representations that it was not moving for

summary judgment. On March 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed her

Opposition, along with her own supporting declarations. On March

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

At oral argument, Counsel for Defendants City of Fresno, 2

Fresno City College, and State Center Community College District

3

13, 2006, the State filed its Reply.

II. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The State moves to dismiss on the basis of Eleventh

Amendment immunity. Under the Eleventh Amendment, “[t]he

Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted

against one of the United States.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. As a

result, a state enjoys immunity from suit in federal court by

citizens of other states and by its own citizens. Lapides v. Bd.

of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 616, 122 S. Ct.

1640, 152 L. Ed. 2d 806 (2002).

Plaintiff does not dispute that Eleventh Amendment immunity

bars her claims against the State. She admits that the State’s

contention that it is immune “appears to be well taken.” Opp’n

2:7-9. She requests that the Court remand her action against the

State to state court, rather than dismissing it. The reason she

prefers remand to dismissal is that the statute of limitations

for her claims against the State has run. Opp’n 4:27-5:2. The

State opposes remand, arguing that it would be futile because

Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the State for which relief

may be granted.

A. Waiver of Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Plaintiff contended for the first time at oral argument that

the State has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. A State 2

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

also contended that a finding of waiver was appropriate. He cited

in support practical problems that might accompany proceeding with

this case in two separate actions. Counsel did not cite, and the

Court is unaware of, any authority for basing a finding of waiver

of Eleventh Amendment immunity on the practical benefits of

maintaining a single lawsuit. 

4

may waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity where it voluntary

invokes the federal court’s jurisdiction through its litigation

conduct. Lapides, 535 U.S. at 620; Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562,

566 (9th Cir. 2004). For instance, a defendant who removes a

case to federal court waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity. 

Lapides, 535 U.S. at 620; Embury, 361 F.3d at 566. A defendant

may also evince its consent to federal jurisdiction through its

litigation conduct once in federal court. Hill v. Blind Indus.

and Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 1999) (state

defendant who participated in extensive pretrial activities and

waited until the first day of trial to assert its Eleventh

Amendment argument had waived its immunity); see also Skelton v.

Henry, 390 F.3d 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that state’s

counterclaim and third party claim did not waive Eleventh

Amendment immunity by voluntarily invoking the jurisdiction of

the federal courts). Courts also may find a waiver where the

state makes a “clear declaration” that it intends to submit

itself to federal jurisdiction. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla.

Prepaidpostsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.

Ct. 2219, 144 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1999). The purpose of the waiver

rule is to avoid the inconsistency and unfairness that would

accompany a state’s right to invoke immunity at will. Lapides,

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

535 U.S. at 623; see generally Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,

524 U.S. 381, 394-98, 118 S. Ct. 2047, 141 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1998)

(Kennedy, J., concurring).

Plaintiff argues that the state has waived its Eleventh

Amendment immunity by asking the Court to dismiss the case on the

merits while claiming that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The

State in its briefs on this Motion asks the Court not to remand

the action and to decide Plaintiff’s claims on the merits:

Therefore, to remand to the state court would

be an idle act since it is clear that

Plaintiff cannot maintain an action against

Defendant State in state court due to lack of

ownership, maintenance or control of the site

of the incident. . . . Consequently, in the

interest of judicial economy, it would seem

more logical for the court to exercise its

pendent jurisdiction and dismiss this action

against Defendant State. 

Reply 2:19-21 (citations omitted). This language expresses the

State’s position that federal jurisdiction is permissible. It

also evinces the State’s intent to use the federal court to its

advantage, that is, by asking the Court to enter judgment in its

favor on the merits. 

The State’s argument that the Court retain the claims and

dismiss them on the merits does not evince voluntary invocation

of the federal forum from which the Court can imply a waiver of

Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Skelton, 390 F.3d at 618. Nor

has the State expressly waived its immunity by making a “clear

declaration” that it submits to the jurisdiction of a federal

court. See Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. at 676. The State appears

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

to have brought its Eleventh Amendment immunity motion at the

earliest possible opportunity. The State was served on December

1, 2005. It participated in the scheduling conference and served

its initial disclosures, after giving Plaintiff notice that it

would challenge its presence in federal court. Opp’n 3:25-28. 

Plaintiff agrees that the State’s participation in those

activities is not likely to represent a waiver of the State’s

Eleventh Amendment immunity claim. Id. The State requested

dismissal under the Eleventh Amendment in its first filing in

this case when it filed this Motion on February 8, 2006. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the State has not waived its

Eleventh Amendment immunity.

B. Dismissal Versus Remand

Plaintiff asks the Court to remand because dismissal of the

claims against State could lead to their being barred by a

statute of limitations or by failure to comply with the Tort

Claims Act. At oral argument, the State, citing Loehr v. Ventura

County Community College District, 147 Cal. App. 3d 1071 (1983),

contended that principles of equitable tolling would allow

Plaintiff nevertheless to bring these claims. The State did not

expressly waive its statute of limitations or Tort Claims Act

defenses. Nor did the State provide a reason that dismissal and

refiling in state court was superior to simply remanding the

claims.

The Supreme Court discussed a federal court’s decision

whether to dismiss or remand a state-law claim in Carnegie-Mellon

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 108 S. Ct. 614, 98 L. Ed. 2d

720 (1988). That case concerned a federal court’s retention of

state-law claims after the dismissal of all federal-law claims

that support subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 348. The Court

emphasized that, in determining whether to dismiss a state-law

claim or remand it, the federal court should consider whether

dismissal would cause an unfair result. See Carnegie-Mellon

Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1988). Foreclosing statelaw claims that a plaintiff has timely brought in state court

“may work injustice to the plaintiff.” Id. at 352. Furthermore,

such foreclosure may violate the principle of comity to states

because “[t]he preclusion of valid state-law claims initially

brought in timely manner in state court undermines the State’s

interest in enforcing its law.” Id.

The Court finds that dismissing the claims against the State

risks the disadvantage, albeit perhaps remote, of rendering

Plaintiff unable to pursue her claims in state court. On the

other hand the Court is unaware of any advantage to dismissal. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the State are remanded to

state court. 

III. Motion to Dismiss

The State has timely asserted that the “[j]udicial power” of

this Court does not extend to Plaintiff’s claims against it. See

U.S. Const. amend. XI. Therefore, the State’s Motion to Dismiss

is DENIED.

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The State’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief 

Can Be Granted is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against the State of California, 

Department of Transportation are REMANDED to Fresno 

County Superior Court.

3. The Court retains jurisdiction over the remainder of 

Plaintiff’s claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 25 Filed 03/27/06 Page 8 of 8