Swindell-Filiaggi v. CSX Corp.
922 F. Supp. 2d 514
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- This is a diversity case where plaintiffs seek remand to state court under the forum defendant rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
- Plaintiffs are citizens of New Jersey; Conrail is Pennsylvania-based; CSX is Virginia-incorporated with Florida principal place of business.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Philadelphia County on December 12, 2012; CSX filed notice of removal on December 13, 2012.
- At removal, plaintiffs had not yet served either defendant; Conrail waived service hours after CSX removal.
- The court must decide whether the forum defendant rule bars removal where the in-state defendant was not yet served when removal was filed.
- The court ultimately remands, holding that enforcing the plain statutory text would yield an absurd result contrary to congressional intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum defendant rule bars removal where in-state defendant has not yet been served | Plaintiffs argue literal text precludes removal once forum defendant exists, unless unserved; thus remand. | Defendants argue plain text allows removal if non-forum defendant removes before service of forum defendant. | Remand granted; plain meaning gives way to congressional intent against gamesmanship. |
| Should the court read the 'joined and served' requirement non-literally to avoid absurd results | Plaintiffs contend the requirement should not be applied literally when it would permit race-to-removal before service. | Defendants urge strict literal application of 'joined and served'. | Court adopts nonliteral reading; permits remand to prevent gamesmanship and align with purpose of rule. |
| Whether removal analysis must focus on the date of removal rather than the exact time | Plaintiffs contend Conrail was served on the same day as removal, satisfying the rule. | Defendants contend removal can occur up to the moment before service. | Court accepts broader timing view; remand would still follow the rule even considering service date. |
| What authority governs interpretation of the forum defendant rule in this district | Judge Rufe and Joyner support looking beyond literal text to avoid absurd results. | Some authority supports strict plain-meaning interpretation. | Weight of district authority favors nonliteral interpretation; remand sustained. |
| Should the court stay or certify for appeal to resolve circuit split | Plaintiffs do not seek a stay; remand is proper procedural disposition. | Defendants request a stay to allow a Third Circuit resolution. | Stay denied; remand affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951) (removal statutes abridge right of removal)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal statutes and state–federal balance)
- United States v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 310 U.S. 534 (1940) (interpretation of statutory language with intent)
- Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 (1939) (timing for removal in diversity cases)
- Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F. Supp. 2d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (nonliteral reading supported to avoid absurd results)
- Korea Exch. Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., 66 F.3d 46 (3d Cir. 1995) (forum defendant context and jurisdictional concerns)