EMMA CASERTA v. KUBOTA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; KUBOTA TRACTOR CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; KUBOTA MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; PENNOCK‘S SALES AND SERVICES, INC., a Pennsylvania business corporation
1:24-CV-00289-SPB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION
July 11, 2025
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISRICT JUDGE
Presently pending before the Court is a motion to remand (ECF No. 11) filed by Plaintiff Emma Caserta. For the reasons explained below, the Plaintiff‘s motion will be GRANTED.
I. Introduction and Procedural History
In early September 2021, a 2004 Kubota RTV900 utility vehicle “UTV” driven by then-17-year-old Emma Caserta “Caserta” of Erie, Pennsylvania rolled over and crashed. ECF No. 11-2, p. 7, ¶¶17-18. Caserta was ejected from the UTV, injuring her spinal cord and leaving her paralyzed from the waist down. Id. at p.8, ¶¶19-21. On July 1, 2024, she filed this suit in Erie County Common Pleas court. Id. at p.14. Named as defendants are: (1) Kubota Corporation (“KBT“), a Japanese corporation with a principal place of business in Osaka, Japan; (2) Kubota Tractor Corporation (“KTC“), a corporation based in Grapevine, Texas and registered to do
On October 16, 2024, Pennock‘s filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings requesting that the state court dismiss Pennock‘s from the suit, arguing, “[I]t is free from doubt that Pennock‘s had absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit, the plaintiff, or the RTV at issue.” ECF No. 1-7, p. 262.
On October 18, 2024, prior to a ruling on Pennock‘s motion, the Kubota Defendants removed the case to federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. ECF No. 1, p. 2. Pennock‘s did not request nor consent to the removal. Id.
On November 18, 2024, Caserta moved to remand the case to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. ECF No. 11, p. 1. Caserta claims the case was improperly removed for three reasons: (1) the removal was untimely; (2) Pennock‘s did not consent to removal; and (3) based on Pennock‘s inclusion as a defendant, complete diversity of citizenship does not exist. Id. at p.2. In support of her position that Defendant Pennock‘s is a proper party to this action, Caserta
The Kubota Defendants contend that Pennock‘s was fraudulently joined as a party since the local business had nothing to do with the UTV in question -- instead, the vehicle was sold by Rammelt and Sons, a dealer in Westfield, New York. ECF No. 1-7, p. 262. Evidence presented in support of this argument includes an affidavit from the former owner of Pennock‘s explaining he never sold the UTV in question and never had a contract to sell that type of vehicle (ECF No. 1-4 at pp. 8-9), dealership records showing Kubota shipped the UTV to Rammelt and Sons which then sold the vehicle to Ed Wagner, (id. at pp. 10-11), and an affidavit from Todd Bechtel, a Senior National Technical Services Manager at KTC, stating that Kubota‘s records show the UTV was distributed to Rammelt and Sons and sold to Ed Wagner. Id. at pp. 13-14. The Kubota Defendants contend that removal was proper because Pennock‘s was, “improperly named as a party for the sole purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction.” ECF No. 13, p. 4.
II. Standard of Review: Motion to Remand
A motion to remand presents a question of subject matter jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
III. Discussion and Analysis
Although Caserta offers three theories in favor of remand, the Court must only consider one to decide the question. Because the filings of the parties present a disputed factual question, the case should be remanded for further proceedings in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas.
The propriety of removal hinges on whether Pennock‘s is a properly joined party. If it is, the parties are not completely diverse, and the federal court lacks jurisdiction. Without Pennock‘s, the remaining parties are diverse and federal jurisdiction could be proper. As noted, in support of her claim that Pennock‘s is properly joined, Caserta submitted an affidavit from the wife of the original purchaser of the UTV in question, stating he purchased the vehicle from Pennock‘s. ECF No. 11-2, p.2. Defendants, meanwhile, submitted affidavits and sales records
Although Defendants properly note that the Court can “pierce the pleadings” to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim against a non-diverse defendant, see Briscoe, 448 F.3d at 218, Defendants here ask this Court to go further. To deny remand, the Court would be required to weigh the contradictory evidence to determine whether the affidavit of Ms. Wagner or the affidavits and sales documents presented by the Defendants offered the more compelling argument. This the Court must not do. Making this credibility determination would result in a decision on the merits, stepping beyond the threshold issue the Court is asked to decide. “[W]here there are colorable claims or defenses asserted against or by diverse and non-diverse defendants alike, the court may not find that the non-diverse parties were fraudulently joined based on its view of the merits of those claims or defenses. Instead, that is a merits determination which must be made by the state court.” Boyer, 913 F.2d at 113. Federal courts must exercise restraint and limit their jurisdiction only to those cases and controversies allowed by the Constitution and statutes. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Although the Kubota Defendants’ assertions that Pennock‘s is improperly joined may ultimately succeed on the merits, that question is not for this Court to decide. Instead, because the Court‘s review is deferential, presenting a “heavy burden of persuasion” on defendants, Steel Valley, 809 F.2d at 1012, and because “all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand,” Abels, 770 F.2d at 29, the case will be remanded forthwith to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.
An appropriate Order follows.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
UNITED STATES DISRICT JUDGE