Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co.
785 F.3d 1182
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Griffioen Group) sued several railroad-related defendants in Iowa state court for negligence and strict liability, alleging bridge maintenance and placement of ballasted railcars during the 2008 Cedar River flood caused or worsened property flooding.
- Defendants include Union Pacific (removing defendant), CRANDIC, and ten Stickle-related entities (Stickle Defendants); service dates: CRANDIC June 7, Stickles June 8, Union Pacific June 10, 2013.
- Union Pacific filed a notice of removal on July 2, 2013, asserting federal-question jurisdiction (initially under FRSA), stating co-defendants did not object; CRANDIC filed a consent July 10; Stickle Defendants filed consent July 31 (after plaintiffs moved to remand).
- District court denied remand, granted Union Pacific’s judgment on the pleadings, held the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) completely preempted plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and ordered transfer to the Surface Transportation Board.
- Eighth Circuit reviewed (1) whether co-defendants’ consent to removal was timely and valid under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and (2) whether the ICCTA completely preempted the state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/validity of co-defendants’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) | Stickle consents were not timely or valid because they neither signed the removal notice nor filed written consent within 30 days | Removal notice stating co-defendants consent (plus later filed Stickle consent) suffices; removing defendant’s certification and Rule 11 exposure validate consent | A removing defendant’s timely notice indicating co-defendant consent, certified under Rule 11 and followed by the co-defendant’s later filed consent, is sufficient; Stickle consent valid |
| Whether ICCTA (49 U.S.C. § 10501) completely preempts plaintiffs’ state-law claims | Plaintiffs: ICCTA does not create a federal cause of action covering bridge maintenance/flooding claims; thus no complete preemption | Defendants: ICCTA’s broad preemption and STB exclusivity completely preempt and recharacterize claims as federal | ICCTA may completely preempt some claims, but here plaintiffs’ property-damage/flooding claims fall outside the substantive scope and substitute cause(s) of the ICCTA; complete preemption not established |
| Scope of § 11704 (STB damages remedy) as basis for complete preemption | § 11704 does not create a standalone federal cause of action covering plaintiffs’ harms | § 11704 provides an administrative damages mechanism that supports complete preemption | § 11704 is limited to ICCTA violations and cannot be read to supplant state-law claims here; it does not show congressional intent to completely preempt these claims |
| Proper remedy when federal jurisdiction not established | Remand unnecessary if federal jurisdiction found | If no federal jurisdiction, case must be remanded to state court | Court vacated district judgment and remanded with instructions to remand the action to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Chi., Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245 (establishing unanimous-consent principle for removal)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (doctrine of complete preemption and recharacterization of state claims)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (requirements for extraordinary preemptive power for complete preemption)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (well-pleaded complaint rule and ordinary preemption vs. complete preemption)
- Pritchett v. Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.) (written indication from each served defendant or authorized person required for consent)
- Christiansen v. W. Branch Cmty. Sch. Dist., 674 F.3d 927 (8th Cir.) (advising non-removing defendants to sign or file unequivocal consent)
- MFA Petroleum Co. v. Johnson, 701 F.3d 243 (8th Cir.) (strong presumption against complete preemption absent substitute federal cause of action)
- Peters v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 80 F.3d 257 (8th Cir.) (complete preemption where federal regulatory scheme provided substitute remedial scheme)
- Deford v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 867 F.2d 1080 (8th Cir.) (complete preemption where federal statute supplied forum and remedies for similar interests)
- Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir.) (written consent requirement; authorization issues)