Smoyer v. Care One, LLC

FRANK N. SMOYER, as Administrator forthe Estate of KATHERINE E. SMOYER, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. CARE ONE, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1696

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

January 23, 2017

District Judge David Stewart Cercone

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan

ECF No. 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4) be granted and this case be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County forthwith.

II. REPORT

A. Factual Background & Procedural History

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 4). This state common law negligence, corporate negligence/liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and wrongful death and survivor action arises from Defendants' alleged custodial abuse and neglect of decedent Katherine Smoyer, while she was a resident of their nursing facility known as the Rehabilitation and Nursing Center of Greater Pittsburgh (the "Facility"). Ms. Smoyer allegedly suffered severe injuries and illnesses while under Defendants' care and supervision, including a fall that resulted in an open right trimalleolar ankle fracture and dislocation requiring surgical repair, a coccyx fungal rash, and a vancomycin-resistant enterococci infection, poor hygiene, severe pain, and ultimately death.

Plaintiff, the administrator of decedent's estate, instituted this civil action on October 17, 2016, by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania ("State Court"). Subsequently, this action was timely removed to this federal court by all Defendants who were properly joined and served at the time of removal,¹ based upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. See Notice of Removal at ¶3 (ECF No. 1). In their Notice of Removal, the Entity Defendants state that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the only non-diverse Defendant, Barbara Mallonee, does not appear to have been served and, in any event, is fraudulently joined in this action. Id. Because Mallonee has been fraudulently joined, the Entity Defendants submit that her citizenship can be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 24-25.

Plaintiff now seeks an order remanding this case to State Court. In support, he argues that complete diversity did not exist at the time the Notice of Removal was filed and the Entity Defendants have failed to establish that Barbara Mallonee was fraudulently joined to destroy diversity jurisdiction. As such, Plaintiff submits that this case should be remanded to State Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court agrees with Plaintiff.

B. Legal Standard - Removal & Remand

Section 1441 of Title 28, United States Code, governs the removal of a case to federal court. Generally, "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . , to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). "The removal statutes 'are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.'" Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987) (other citations omitted)); Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 219 (3d Cir. 2005). Where a motion for remand is filed, the defendant has the burden of proving that removal was proper. Sikirica, 416 F.3d at 219 (citing Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004)). When a state court action has been removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, as in the present case, complete diversity ofcitizenship of the parties must exist and none of the defendants may be a citizen of the forum state. 28 U.S.C. §1441(b); In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 215 (citation omitted).

C. Analysis

In opposing remand, the Entity Defendants further expand on the arguments raised in their Notice of Removal. In particular, the Entity Defendants argue initially that the forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) does not apply, and thus remand is not required, because Barbara Mallonee was not a properly joined and served defendant at the time they filed their Notice of Removal. (Entity Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ("Defs. Opp'n") at 2-4, ECF No. 7). Second, the Entity Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to identify any case law or statute that imposes a duty upon nursing home administrators to the residents of the nursing home, and even if such a duty existed giving rise to a tort-based claim, the Entity Defendants maintain that Plaintiff failed to include any allegations in the Complaint that Mallonee violated the Pennsylvania Nursing Home Administrator Licensure Act, 49 Pa. Code §§ 39.91 et seq. Id. at 4-6. Moreover, the Entity Defendants argue that the Complaint is utterly devoid of particularized allegations against Mallonee, and instead, lumps together all of the Defendants in its "vague factual allegations." Id. at 6. Finally, the Entity Defendants contend that Plaintiff's reliance on the participation theory to impose liability on both the employee and employer is not supported by Pennsylvania law based on the circumstances alleged in this case. Id. at 7-8. As explained below, Defendants' arguments lack merit.

1. Forum Defendant Rule

As Plaintiff correctly notes in his Reply Brief, the "properly joined and served" requirement in the forum defendant rule does not come into play here because complete diversity did not exist at the time of removal. Section 1441(b)(2) provides: "A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2). The latter part of Section 1441(b)(2) is known as the forum defendant rule, and prevents removal of a state case, on the basis of complete diversity, to a jurisdiction where one of the defendants is a resident of the forum state. The Entity Defendants maintain that the forum defendant rule does not apply here because Defendant Barbara Mallonee, a resident of forum state, was not "properly joined and served" at the time of removal, and therefore, the motion to remand should be denied. The Entity Defendants' argument misses the mark.

Whether or not Barbara Mallonee was properly joined and served prior to removal is simply irrelevant because complete diversity did not exist at the time of removal. See Cook v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:11-CV-01017, 2012 WL 407261, at *4 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 8, 2012) (finding that the service requirement of §1441(b)(2) does not apply when a case is not "otherwise removable" under § 1332(a) because complete diversity does not exist.) (citing 14B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3723, at 650-51 (4th ed. 2009) ("Since an action is notremovable under Section 1441 unless it originally might have been brought in a federal court, it is not surprising—and the cases make clear—that the basic principles of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, such as the requirement of complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants, . . . fully apply to cases removed under Section 1441(a) and (b).") (footnotes omitted)). See also Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 541 (1939) ("[T]he fact that the resident defendant has not been served with process does not justify removal by the non-resident defendant" where the inclusion of the resident defendant in a non-separable controversy defeated complete diversity and thus precluded removal altogether) (emphasis added; citations omitted); Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9^th Cir. 1969) ("Whenever federal jurisdiction in a removal case depends upon complete diversity, the existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service.") (footnote omitted); Pecherski v. General Motors Corp., 636 F.2d 1156, 1160-61 (8th Cir.1981) ( "[W]e decline to read section 1441(b) as expanding removal jurisdiction, but rather conclude that section 1441(b) did not change the removal requirement set forth in Pullman that a court, in determining the propriety of removal based on diversity of citizenship, must consider all named defendants, regardless of service.") (footnote omitted); N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 883 (5^th Cir. 1998) ("A non-resident defendant cannot remove an action if the citizenship of any co-defendant, joined by the plaintiff in good faith, destroys complete diversity, regardless of service or non-service upon the co-defendant. Whenever federal jurisdiction in a removal case depends uponcomplete diversity, the existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service.") (citing Pullman, 305 U.S. at 540-41) (other citations omitted).²

Here, it is clear from the Complaint, and the Entity Defendants do not dispute, that Barbara Mallonee was a resident of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is also a resident of Pennsylvania. Thus, complete diversity did not exist at the time this action was commenced and at the time of removal, and therefore, the Entity Defendant's reliance on the forum defendant rule's "properly joined and served" requirement to defeat remand is misplaced.³

2. Fraudulent Joinder

In the alternative, the Entity Defendants submit that removal was proper because Plaintiff fraudulently joined Barbara Mallonee as a defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction.

The doctrine of fraudulent joinder provides an exception to the requirement in Section 1441(b) that...