Kuchta v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba Amtrak

Background

Madison Kuchta filed a wrongful-death case in the Contra Costa County Superior Court on December 8, 2021. She named the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, and Contra Costa County as defendants. The complaint concerned the death of Kuchta’s father, Brian Kuchta, who was killed when he attempted to retrieve his dog from railroad tracks and was struck by an Amtrak train.

Amtrak removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal-question jurisdiction statute. Amtrak relied on its incorporation by an Act of Congress and the United States’ ownership of more than half of Amtrak’s capital stock. Amtrak had received a courtesy copy of the complaint, but neither defendant had been formally served when Amtrak removed the case.

Motion to Remand

Kuchta moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. Her opening argument was that removal was procedurally defective because Contra Costa County had not consented to removal. In her reply, she also argued that removal was improper because Amtrak had never been formally served.

The court rejected the comparison to “snap” removal. It explained that the forum-defendant rule and the cases addressing pre-service removal gamesmanship apply to removals based solely on diversity jurisdiction. This case was removed based on federal-question jurisdiction, not diversity jurisdiction. The court also noted that Kuchta did not dispute that federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases against Amtrak on the stated ownership and incorporation basis.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that all defendants who have been properly served generally must join in or consent to removal. But defendants who have been named and not yet served need not join the notice of removal. Because Contra Costa County had not been served when Amtrak removed the case, the County’s lack of consent did not require remand.

The court separately held that formal service on Amtrak was not required before removal. It distinguished decisions addressing when the 30-day period for removal begins from the separate question of whether a defendant may remove before service. Relying on the reasoning of other courts, it concluded that a complaint need only be filed to be removable and that Amtrak was entitled to remove the state-court action after it was filed, even though Amtrak had not yet been served.

Ruling

Judge Joseph Spero denied Kuchta’s motion to remand. The order did not decide the merits of the wrongful-death claims; it decided only whether the case should be returned to state court. The provided opinion text is truncated near the final sentence of the service analysis, but its conclusion expressly states that the motion was denied.