Ramsey v. Foundation

DIANA L. RAMSEY, AS ADMINISTRATRIX,OF THE ESTATE OF MEGAN LOUISERAMSEY, DECEASED, AND AS PARENT ANDLEGAL GUARDIAN OF MEGAN LOUISERAMSEY IN HER OWN RIGHT, Plaintiff, v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, (d/b/a DEVEREUX POCONO CENTER), Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-299

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 22, 2016

Jones, II J.

MEMORANDUM

Diana Ramsey ("Plaintiff"), as administratrix of the estate of decedent, Megan Ramsey, and as parent and legal guardian of Megan Ramsey, filed a Complaint against The Devereux Foundation ("Defendant") seeking punitive and compensatory damages from Defendant "in a sum in excess of the limits for arbitration, plus interests, costs, and damages for prejudgment delay." (Dkt No. 6. [hereinafter A.C.].) Now pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Or, In the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt No. 7 [hereinafter MTD]) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition of Defendant's Motion (Dkt No. 8 [hereinafter Resp.]).

For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be DENIED and Defendant's Motion, in the alternative, to Transfer Venue will be GRANTED.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this claim by filing a Complaint against Defendant on January 25, 2016 followed by the Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. (Dkt No. 6.) In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks punitive and compensatory damages from Defendant under three separate counts regarding the death of decedent, Megan Ramsey: (1) negligence, (2) wrongful death, and (3) survival. (A.C. ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of her deceased daughter, Megan Ramsey, whose estate Plaintiff administers. Megan Ramsey was born in New Jersey and lived there until she was 19 years old. This action concerns Megan Ramsey's death from bowel perforation and intra-abdominal infection while under the care of Defendant at its community residential facility called Skyview in Greentown, Pennsylvania. (A.C. ¶ 28.)

Plaintiff brought the instant suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, invoking this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 pertaining to diversity of citizenship. (A.C. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff asserts diversity jurisdiction based on the allegation that Ms. Ramsey, the decedent, was a citizen of New Jersey whereas the Devereux Foundation is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. (A.C. ¶¶ 1-4.) Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper due to the location of Defendant's principal place of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as well as the fact that Defendant regularly conducts business in this District. (A.C. ¶ 16.)

Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("F.R.C.P.") 12(b)(1). (MTD ¶ 48.) Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to a lack of complete diversity between the parties. (MTD ¶ 47.) Specifically, Defendant alleges that Diana Ramsey, as administratrix of Megan Ramsey's estate, is a citizen of Pennsylvania for diversity jurisdiction purposes and that this defeats complete diversity since Defendant is a Pennsylvania citizen as well. (MTD ¶ 46.) If the Court is found to have subject matter jurisdiction under 12(b)(1), Defendant alternatively moves for the Court to transfer venue to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (MTD ¶ 80.) Defendant argues that the Middle District is the more appropriate venue because it: is the District in which the events occurred, is more convenient for the parties, is more convenient for the witnesses, serves the interests of justice, serves private interests, and serves public interest factors. (MTD ¶ 60-61.)

In response, Plaintiff argues that decedent was a citizen of New Jersey and not Pennsylvania at the time of her death, thereby creating complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Resp. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff bases this claim on decedent's incapacity to change her own domicile, the financial commitment made by New Jersey for decedent's care in Pennsylvania, and the intended return of decedent to New Jersey under the "Return Home New Jersey" initiative. (Resp. ¶¶ 28-31.) New Jersey's Department of Human Services provided financial support for Megan Ramsey's care throughout her adult life. (A.C. ¶¶ 9-10.) Return Home NewJersey is a state-sponsored initiative to bring disabled people like Megan Ramsey back to their home state of New Jersey. (A.C. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff also argues that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a more appropriate venue than the Middle District. (Resp. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff bases this assertion on the general deference granted to a plaintiff's choice of forum as well as the fact that many witnesses reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or in New Jersey, which Plaintiff alleges is closer to the Eastern District than the Middle District. (Resp. ¶ 53.) Plaintiff additionally notes that certain events involved in the action occurred in the Eastern District such as the decedent's autopsy and routine care at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and any records located in the Middle District are easily transferrable to the Eastern District. (Resp. ¶¶ 56, 64.)

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

a. Legal Standard

District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where there is a federal question or where: (1) the parties are citizens of different states and (2) the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). "Complete diversity requires that . . . no plaintiff be a citizen of the same state as any defendant." Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs. Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553, (2005). The party claiming the existence of subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2), "the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent."

Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction through Rule 12(b)(1) motions take two forms, facial and factual. "In reviewing a facial attack, the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). A factual attack, on the other hand, "argues that, while the pleadings themselves facially establish jurisdiction, one or more of the factual allegations is untrue thereby causing the case to fall outside the court's jurisdiction." Leisk v. Elliot, No. CIV.A. 14-3639, 2014 WL 6070837, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (citing Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891). "[I]n reviewing a factualattack, 'the court must permit the plaintiff to respond with rebuttal evidence in support of jurisdiction, and the court then decides the jurisdictional issue by weighing the evidence.'" Lincoln Ben. Life Co., 800 F.3d at 105 (quoting McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 290 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted)). The trial court may, therefore, weigh evidence outside the pleadings in order to "satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case." Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. As such, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to allegations made in the Complaint insofar as Defendant launches a factual, rather than a facial, attack. Id.

b. Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Exists Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied

Defendant alleges that the decedent, Megan Ramsey, was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and therefore Diane Ramsey, suing on her behalf, is considered a citizen of Pennsylvania for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff concedes that the administratrix of an estate assumes the domicile of the decedent. However, Plaintiff maintains that Megan Ramsey was and continued to be a citizen of New Jersey until her death. Because the Court agrees that Plaintiff was a citizen of New Jersey at the time of her death, complete diversity exists between the parties and the prerequisites for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) are satisfied. The Court will accordingly deny the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

For diversity purposes, where the plaintiff is the representative of the estate of a decedent, the plaintiff is deemed to acquire the citizenship of the decedent at the time of the decedent's death. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(2) ("the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent . . ."). In addition, "the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff Diane Ramsey's citizenship as both administratrix and legal representation is determined by Megan Ramsey's citizenship at the time of her death.

Citizenship and domicile are synonymous for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and domicile does not necessarily require that a person reside in the respective state. Last v. Elwyn, Inc., 935 F.Supp. 594, 596-597 (E.D. Pa. 1996). "Domicile of origin" is the domicile one acquires at birth, and that remains one's domicile until one assumes a different "domicile of choice." Miss. Bandof Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). A person changes domicile by moving one's residence to a different state with the intention to make that state one's home. Freidrich...