Espinoza Obeso v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba Amtrak

Background

The plaintiffs—Jesus Antonio Espinoza Obeso, Jesus Antonio Espinoza Rodriguez, Patricia Espinoza Rodriguez, Aide Guadalupe Espinoza Rodriguez, and Dania Melina Espinoza Rodriguez—alleged that Luz Aide Espinoza died after an Amtrak train struck her car at a railroad crossing in Monterey County, California, on October 15, 2022. The plaintiffs, described as heirs to the decedent’s estate, filed a state-court action against six named defendants and 30 unnamed defendants.

Amtrak removed the action to federal court on June 6, 2023, relying on federal-question jurisdiction. No other named defendant joined in or consented to removal at that time. The plaintiffs moved to remand, or return, the case to state court. Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Korbin Patrick opposed the motion. The opinion refers to another defendant as “Defendant California”; it does not provide that defendant’s full name.

Legal standard

A case removed from state court generally requires all properly joined and served defendants to join in or consent to removal when removal is based on federal-question jurisdiction. The removal statute is strictly construed, and doubts about the right to remove are resolved in favor of remand. Consent from unnamed Doe defendants is not required.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Defendant California had not consented to removal. Although Union Pacific, the City of King, Korbin Patrick, and the County of Monterey later filed consents, Defendant California did not. The court explained that later consent can sometimes cure an initial defect, but the defect remained here because one properly served defendant still had not consented.

The opposing defendants argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) allowed removal without Defendant California’s consent because only claims against Amtrak raised federal questions. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that § 1441(c) did not apply because the claims lacking an independent federal basis would fall within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction—jurisdiction over related state-law claims arising from the same case or controversy. The court also stated that even if § 1441(c) applied, Defendant California would still have needed to consent because the wrongful-death claim was asserted against Defendant California and was subject to federal-question jurisdiction under the court’s analysis.

The opposing defendants also argued that Amtrak did not know other defendants had been served and therefore should be excused from obtaining their consent. The court rejected that position because Amtrak had checked the state-court docket on June 6, 2023, after proofs of service had been filed on June 1 and 2. The court concluded that Amtrak was on notice that other parties had been served and should have investigated which parties those were and obtained their consent before removing. The court further criticized Amtrak for not contacting the state court, the plaintiffs’ counsel, or its co-defendants to determine who had been served.

Finally, the opposing defendants argued that Defendant California was a sham or fraudulently joined defendant and therefore did not need to consent. Fraudulent joinder means that a plaintiff could not possibly state a valid claim against a defendant under settled state-law rules. The court found that the defendants had not met their heavy burden to prove fraudulent joinder. It declined to resolve the disputed ownership or control of the accident location based on the defendants’ conclusory statements and excerpts from a highway-patrol report.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and remanded the action to the Superior Court of California for the County of Monterey. The pending motions to dismiss were terminated as moot. The court did not address the opposing defendants’ argument that some claims were preempted by federal law because the procedural defect in removal independently required remand.