In re Pa., Dep't of Transp.

351 F.Supp.3d 943

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STATE ROUTE 0022, SECTION 034, IN THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKSTOWN

Case No. 3:18-cv-57

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed October 30, 2018

Mary Lynch Friedline, J. Eric Barchiesi, Office of Attorney General, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.

Phillip O. Robertson, Despoy & Robertson, Altoona, PA, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion") (ECF No. 23) filed by Condemnee Stewart Merritts, Jr. Merritts filed a brief in support of his Motion. (ECF No. 24.) PennDOT did not respond to Merritts's Motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY the Motion.

II. Background

Merritts owns two parcels of land in Frankstown Township, Pennsylvania, totaling 1.5 acres. (ECF No. 3 at 3-4.) In February 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") informed Merritts that it would need to acquire a small portion of his land for a highway improvement project. (ECF No. 3-1 at 2.) PennDOT subsequently offered Merritts $500.00 to purchase a right-of-way to the land, which included a nearly 3,000 square foot temporary construction easement and a 1,150 square foot drainage easement. (Id. at 1.) Merritts rejected PennDOT's offer, and made a counter offer which PennDOT declined. (ECF No. 3 at 3.)

PennDOT filed a Declaration of Taking in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania. (Id. at 4.) Merritts filed Preliminary Objections asserting, inter alia , that PennDOT did not have the authority to condemn his property, that the taking was unconstitutional because it benefitted a private enterprise, and that the taking was excessive. (See ECF No. 3-3 at 3-3 at 3.)

PennDOT responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss Merritts's Preliminary Objections and a Motion for Writ of Possession. (Id. ) The Court of Common Pleas held oral argument. (Id. ) The Court of Common Pleas then issued an opinion which denied and dismissed Merritts's Preliminary Objections, granted PennDOT's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Writ of Possession, and awarded PennDOT possession of Merritts's property. (Id. at 5.)

Merritts appealed. (Id. ) The Commonwealth Court received briefs and heard oral argument from both parties. (Id. ) On February 26, 2018, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Blair County Court of Common Pleas. (Id. )

On March 26, 2018—exactly thirty days after the Commonwealth Court's decision—Merritts filed a notice of removal. (ECF No. 1.) PennDOT did not challenge the removal, or even enter an initial appearance in the case.

On July 13, 2018, Merritts filed a Petition to Stay Construction (ECF No. 5), which the Court interpreted as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court held a status conference on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on July 25, 2018. (ECF No. 12.) Counsel for both parties agreed that the Court should resolve the jurisdictional issue raised in PennDOT's Motion to Dismiss before deciding Merritts's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (See id. )

PennDOT argued that the Court should dismiss Merritts's removal action for several reasons. First, PennDOT contended that Merritts improperly removed his case long after the 30-day statutory removal period expired. (ECF No. 9 at 6.) Second, PennDOT argued that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from possessing subject-matter jurisdiction over Merritts's case. (Id. at 9.) Finally, PennDOT further asserted that the Court should abstain from hearing Merritts's case under Burford . See generally Burford v. Sun Oil Co. , 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943).

On August 28, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting PennDOT's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (ECF No. 18.) The Court held that (1) PennDOT waived any objection to the untimeliness of Merritts's removal by failing to object to removal within 30 days, (2) the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, (3) the Court should abstain from hearing the case under Burford , and (4) Merritts did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. (See id. ) Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to state court. (Id. at 12.)

Merritts filed the instant Motion (ECF No. 23) and brief in support (ECF No. 24) on September 27, 2018. Merritts argues that the Court erred in remanding the case to state court because there is subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. (Id. at 1.) Merritts specifically argues that: (1) the Court improperly applied the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, (2) the Court improperly applied Burford using non-precedential case law, (3) Merritts should be held to a less stringent pleading standard because he was a pro se litigant when this case began, and (4) removal was proper because Plaintiff PennDOT invoked federal jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 24.) The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.

III. Legal Standard on Motions for Reconsideration

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e).

"A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used ‘to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’ " Jackson v. City of Phila. , 535 F. App'x 64, 69 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) ). "Accordingly, a judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P. , 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood Café , 176 F.3d at 677 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"Motions for reconsideration are not designed to provide litigants with a ‘second bite at the apple.’ " Cole's Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. UPMC & Highmark Inc. , No. CV 10-1609, 2017 WL 432947, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2017) (quoting Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. , 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) ). "A motion for reconsideration is not to be used to relitigate, or ‘rehash,’ issues the court already decided, or to ask a district court to rethink a decision it, rightly or wrongly, already made." Cole's Wexford Hotel , 2017 WL 432947, at *2 (citing Williams v. City of Pittsburgh , 32 F.Supp.2d 236, 238 (W.D. Pa. 1998) ). "By reason of the interest in finality, at least at the district court level, motions for reconsideration should be sparingly granted." Cole's Wexford Hotel , 2017 WL 432947, at *1.

IV. Discussion

A. The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

In its Memorandum Opinion entered on August 28, 2018, the Court found that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. (See ECF No. 18 at 6-8.) Merritts argues that the Court erred in applying Rooker-Feldman .

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine stands for "the principle that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) ; D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) ). The doctrine applies in "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Id. at 164 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) ).

"[A] claim is barred by Rooker-Feldman in two circumstances: first, if the federal claim was ‘actually litigated’ in state court prior to the filing of the federal action or, second, if the federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined with the state adjudication.’ " Walker v. Horn , 385 F.3d 321, 329 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre , 321 F.3d 411, 419 (3d Cir. 2003) ).

The Third Circuit has broken down the Rooker-Feldman into four elements that must be met for the doctrine to apply in either of the circumstances mentioned above. For Rooker-Feldman to apply, the Court must find the following: "(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments; (3) those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and reject the state judgments." Schatten v. Weichert Realtors, Inc. , 406 F. App'x 589, 591 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. , 615 F.3d at 169 ).

The Third Circuit has explained that "the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is a narrow doctrine that applies only in limited circumstances." Shibles v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 730 Fed.Appx. 103, 105 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. , 615 F.3d at 169 ). "[W]hen the source of the injury is the defendant's actions (and not the state court judgments), the federal suit is independent, even if it asks the federal court to deny a legal conclusion reached by the state court[.]" Shibles , 730 Fed.Appx. at 105-06 (quoting Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. , 615 F.3d at 167.). Accordingly, for the Court to determine that Rooker-Feldman precludes Merritts from removing his case to federal court, the Court "must determine that the...