Rebecca Hampton v. R.J. Corman Railroad Switching
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12341
6th Cir.2012Background
- Hampton’s car collided with a train owned by RJC on a crossing in Louisville, Kentucky in the early morning of October 16, 2005; the train blocked the crossing with a red boxcar.
- Hampton alleged the crossing lights were not flashing and that she did not see the train until impact, claiming negligent maintenance and operation by RJC.
- Hampton amended to cite federal statutes/regulations, including FRSA provisions and related regulations (45 U.S.C. § 431 et seq., 49 U.S.C. § 20134, 23 C.F.R. § 646.214).
- RJC removed the case to the Western District of Kentucky, and Hampton did not move to remand; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Sixth Circuit sua sponte examined subject-matter jurisdiction, noting removal requires a claim arising under federal law or a substantial federal issue; the court concluded no such basis existed here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRSA creates a federal private cause of action | Hampton relies on FRSA provisions as basis for federal claim. | FRSA does not create or imply a private federal cause of action for state-law tort claims. | No federal private right under FRSA |
| Whether state-law claims implicate substantial federal questions under Grable | State claims arise from federal requirements and thus concern federal issues. | No substantial federal issue; FRSA violations cannot anchor removal. | No substantial federal question; not removable under Grable |
| Whether complete preemption allows removal under FRSA | N/A | FRSA might preempt but does not authorize removal under complete preemption doctrine. | FRSA not completely preemptive; removal not proper on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (arising-under jurisdiction requires federal question or substantial federal issue)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (substantial federal issues required for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2006) (two portals to federal jurisdiction: federal cause of action or significant federal issues)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (statutory intent is determinative for interpreting federal rights)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson (duplicate citation placeholder), 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (see above (duplication avoided in final list))
- Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 532 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2008) (no implied federal jurisdiction via FRSA private remedy)
- Bates v. Mo. & Ark. R.R. Co., Inc., 548 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2008) (limits on complete preemption under FRSA)
- Elam v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (FRSA not broadly preemptive; ICCTA context distinguished)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (removal based on federal defense insufficient)