Johnston v. Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-04394
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Johnston v. CPKC, Judge Tunheim denied dismissal, finding jurisdiction but allowing 90 days to properly serve CPKC or name Soo Line.
Robert Johnston may continue the case for now, but he must properly serve CPKC or amend the complaint to name Soo Line within 90 days. CPKC may file a renewed service-based dismissal motion if he does neither.
What happened
Johnston sued Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKC) under the Federal Railroad Safety Act after an alleged workplace injury and retaliation. CPKC argued that Johnston sued the wrong company and that the court lacked authority over it.
The court found that CPKC and Soo Line could be treated as alter egos for personal-jurisdiction purposes, so it denied dismissal on that ground. But it also found that Johnston had not properly served CPKC because the employee who received the papers lacked authority to accept service.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with prejudice and denied the motion based on improper service without prejudice. Johnston has 90 days to properly serve CPKC or amend the complaint to name Soo Line; otherwise, CPKC may seek dismissal again.
The detailed version
- Johnston v. Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited · No. 0:24-cv-04394
- John Tunheim
- June 5, 2025
Background
Robert Johnston brought claims under the Federal Railroad Safety Act against Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKC), identifying CPKC as his employer. Johnston alleged that after he was injured while working for a railroad, his supervisor pressured him not to receive pain medication, ordered him to return to work, and later targeted him for discipline, eventually leading to his resignation.
CPKC argued that Johnston sued the wrong entity. It said that CPKC is a Canadian holding company with no employees and that Soo Line, a Minnesota company and CPKC subsidiary, was Johnston’s actual employer. CPKC also argued that Johnston failed to properly serve it. A process server delivered the summons and complaint to Diane Northup, but CPKC said Northup was not its employee and was not authorized to accept service.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court held that CPKC itself did not have sufficient direct contacts with Minnesota. It nevertheless found that Johnston had pleaded enough facts, viewed in his favor at this stage, to show that CPKC and Soo Line were alter egos. The court relied on allegations and evidence that Soo Line was CPKC’s wholly owned subsidiary, that CPKC included Soo Line in its reports, that CPKC described taking full control of Soo Line, and that the two companies shared a chief executive officer.
Because the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over CPKC as Soo Line’s alter ego, it denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with prejudice.
Service of Process
The court concluded that service was not proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. CPKC had no registered agent for service in Minnesota or Missouri, and Northup did not have actual authority to accept service. The court distinguished actual authority from apparent authority: the circumstances Johnston described might suggest that CPKC appeared to authorize Northup to accept the papers, but they did not show that CPKC gave Northup actual authority to do so.
The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss for improper service of process without prejudice. Within 90 days after the order, Johnston may either properly serve CPKC or amend his complaint to name Soo Line as the defendant. If neither occurs, the court granted CPKC leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss for improper service.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.