Byers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak)

RAYMOND BYERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK), et al., Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01024 (BRM) (CLW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

January 31, 2022

OPINION

HON.BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI United States District Judge

Before the Court is Defendant New Jersey Transit Rail Operations Inc.'s (“NJTRO”) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Motion for Declaratory Judgment against co-Defendant Intersection Media LLC (“Intersection”). (ECF No. 60.) Intersection filed an opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 62.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the motions and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause shown, NJTRO's motions are DENIED.

I. Background

This case arises out of a negligence claim filed by Plaintiffs Raymond Byers (“Mr. Byers”) and Tiffany Byers (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”), Intersection, and NJTRO. (Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 19).) Mr. Byers, a train conductor employed by NJTRO, alleges a commercial advertising sign fell on him as he was traversing the platform of Tracks 9 and 10 at Pennsylvania Station in New York City in April 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 22.) Mr. Byers alleges he suffered “multiple abrasions, contusions, and lacerations of the head and face; contusion of the left eyeball and orbital tissues; injury to the cervical spine; cervical sprain and strain; cervical radiculitis; cervical facet syndrome; cervical spondylosis; and other injuries” as a result of this incident. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 44.) According to Mr. Byers, Amtrak owns and maintains Pennsylvania Station. (Id. ¶¶ 11-15.)

Pursuant to a Northeast Corridor Services Agreement, Amtrak permits NJTRO to use Pennsylvania Station for NJTRO's rail operations. (NJTRO Mot., Ex. B (ECF No. 60-4).) Additionally, Amtrak has an Indoor Advertising License Agreement (“Licensing Agreement”) with Intersection (Intersection Opp., Ex. A (ECF No. 62-1)), pursuant to which Amtrak permits Intersection to install and maintain various types of advertising, including overhead advertising signs in Pennsylvania Station (Id.; ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 18, 21.) The Licensing Agreement contains an indemnification provision, providing in relevant part:

Licensee^[1] shall indemnify, protect, defend, and save harmless the Amtrak Parties irrespective of any negligence, fault or strict liability on their part, from and against all losses, damages, liabilities, penalties, judgments, fines, forfeitures, demands, claims, causes of action, suits at law or in equity, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, cost of defense and attorneys' fees) . . . which any or all of them hereafter may incur, suffer, sustain, be subject to, incur or pay by reason of or on account of, directly or indirectly,

(i) the construction, placement, installation, attachment, presence, use, maintenance, repair, alteration, improvement, renewal, destruction, relocation or removal of, or damage to, Indoor Advertising Displays or the copy thereon;^[2] (ii) the acts, errors or omissions of Licensee, its officers, members, principals, directors, employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors, relating, indirectly or directly, to this Agreement;

(iii) the violation of any provision of this Agreement by Licensee, its officers, members, directors, employees, agents, representatives, contractors or subcontractors;

(iv) any actual or alleged infringement of any patent, trademark, service mark, copyright or similar property right, or arising from any alleged or actual unfair competition or other similar claim or any actual or alleged libel or slander, arising out of the operations of Licensee connected with this Agreement;

(v) the breach of any representation or warranty made by Licensee under Section 41; or

(vi) Amtrak's exercise of its rights under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the disapproval or approval of any advertising material, advertisers, advertising or manner of presentation of material.

(ECF No. 62-1 at 22 of 57.) The Licensing Agreement defines “Amtrak Parties” as “Amtrak, its affiliates and subsidiaries (including, without limitation, WTC), TSL, SEPTA, and their respective principals, members, officers, directors, employees and agents.” (Id. at 5 of 57.) Moreover, the Licensing Agreement includes a provision excluding certain third parties, stating “This Agreement shall not create for, nor give to, any third party any claim or right of action against either party that would not arise in the absence of this Agreement.” (Id. at 34 of 57.)

The Licensing Agreement also contains a choice of law provision, providing in relevant part:

This Agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties and any claims or disputes relating thereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia without giving effect to choice of law or conflicts of laws principles thereof and regardless of the place of execution or performance of this Agreement or any part thereof.

(Id. at 32 of 57.)

On July 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging negligence on the part of Amtrak, Intersection, and NJTRO for failing to properly inspect and maintain the overhead sign that fell on Mr. Byers and caused him injury. (ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 22-23; 42-43.) On August 10, 2021, NJTRO moved for summary judgment against Intersection, seeking a judgment declaring NJTRO is entitled to full benefit of the indemnification provision in the Licensing Agreement and ordering Intersection to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless NJTRO in this litigation for Plaintiffs' claimed injuries. (ECF No. 60.) On August 31, 2021, Intersection filed an opposition. (ECF No. 62.)

II. Legal Standard

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “An issue is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and a factual dispute is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's evidence ‘is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.'” Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. “If the moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party must support its motion with credible evidence . . . that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.” Id. at 331 (citing 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2727 (2d ed. 1983)). On the other hand, if the burden of persuasion at trial would be on the nonmoving party, the party moving for summary judgment may satisfy Rule 56's burden of production by either: (1) “submit[ting] affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim, ” or (2) demonstrating “that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim.” Id. (citations omitted). Once the movant adequately supports its motion pursuant to Rule 56(c), the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (quotation marks omitted). In deciding the merits of a party's motion for summary judgment, the court's role is not to evaluate the evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Credibility determinations are the province of the factfinder. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).

There can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact, ” however, if a party fails “to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial[.]” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial[.]” Id. at 323.

B. Declaratory Judgment

The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that a Court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The express language of the declaratory judgment statute and fundamental principles of standing under Article III of the Constitution limit this power to actions that present a “case or controversy.” Cutaiar v Marshall, 590 F.2d 523, 527 (3d Cir. 1979). The “actual controversy” requirement refers to the case or...