In Re: Paulsboro Derailment Ca v.
704 F. App'x 78
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In Mantua Creek derailment near Paulsboro, NJ, vinyl chloride was released, creating an airborne chemical cloud.
- Plaintiffs include Breeman family and first responders alleging physical injuries, medical monitoring, emotional distress, and punitive damages arising from Conrail’s bridge operations.
- District court consolidated suits, granted summary judgment against some first responders, but questioned Breeman's amount-in-controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
- Bridge had a computerized locking system; a red signal required a qualified employee to confirm safe crossing; on Nov 30, 2012 a train crossing led to seven-car derailments and the vinyl chloride spill.
- Plaintiffs argued for federal diversity jurisdiction; district court concluded punitive damages unavailable and damages potentially below $75,000, leading to dismissal of Breeman claims; Johnson’s appeal was untimely.
- Appellants challenge jurisdiction by arguing the amount-in-controversy should be assessed at filing; the court analyzes pretrial clarifications and post-filing developments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amount in controversy at filing exceeded $75,000 | Breeman contends jurisdiction existed at filing | Conrail contends damages could not reach threshold | Lack of jurisdiction; Breeman claims do not meet threshold |
| Whether punitive damages could satisfy the amount in controversy | Punitive damages could push above $75,000 | New Jersey punitive-damages standards limit recovery; no malice shown | Punitive damages unavailable under New Jersey law; jurisdiction remains lacking |
| Whether post-filing disclosures affect jurisdictional analysis | Clarifications should be assessed from filing time | Court may consider revelations that show threshold was never met | Revelations considered; still insufficient to satisfy jurisdictional amount |
| Whether emotional-distress and medical-monitoring claims alone could reach threshold | Claims for ongoing monitoring and cancer-fear damages | Alleged injuries too modest to reach $75,000 | Even combined with distress claims, threshold not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2016) (burden to prove amount in controversy exceeds threshold)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (S. Ct. 1938) (amount-control rule; legal certainty standard for jurisdiction)
- Huber v. Taylor, 532 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2008) (post-filing revelations may establish jurisdictional facts at filing time)
- Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1971) (excessiveness of a verdict left to trial court’s discretion; not binding on jurisdiction)
- Haller v. Lipitor Antitrust Litig. (in reference to Autо-Owners interpretations), 855 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2017) (defining jurisdictional amount in controversy and good-faith allegations)
- Allendorf v. Kaiserman Enterprises, 630 A.2d 402 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1993) (punitive damages unavailable where risk is addressed and no intent shown)
- Theer v. Philip Carey Co., 611 A.2d 148 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (emotional distress due to fear of increased cancer risk can be compensable)
- Smith v. Whitaker, 734 A.2d 243 (N.J. 1999) (malice or high-probability harm standard for punitive damages)