Singleton Corp. v. P'ship, LLC

Full title: SINGLETON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PARTNERSHIP, LLC, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

Date published: Nov 30, 2023

1:23-cv-01832 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2023)

Opinion

1:23-cv-01832

11-30-2023

SINGLETON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PARTNERSHIP, LLC, Defendant.

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

ORDER

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

In this interstate shipping dispute, Plaintiff Singleton Corporation contracted Defendant Partnership, LLC to ship goods from Ohio to Texas.¹Singleton alleges that Partnership damaged those goods in transit.²

1 Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 5.

2 Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.

Plaintiff Singleton originally filed suit in state court. Defendant Partnership removed this case to federal court, arguing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a).³

3 Doc. 1 at ¶ 4.

Although no party has asked the Court remand this case to state court, the Court has “an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”⁴

4 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010).

Neither party suggests that the Court has diversity jurisdiction. Nor could they because both parties are Ohio companies.⁵

5 Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 1, 3.

Instead, Defendant Partnership relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), a type of federal question jurisdiction. However, the complaint makes only state claims: breach of contract and negligence.⁶Although Partnership raises federal preemption defenses under the Federal Aviation Authorization Administration Act of 1994 (FAAAA) and under the Carmack Amendment,⁷ a federal preemption defense to a state claim normally does not create federal question jurisdiction.⁸

6 See Doc. 1-1.

7 Doc. 5-3.

8 Strong v. Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 78 F.3d 256, 259 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987)).

An exception to this general rule occurs when there is “complete preemption.”⁹It is not clear whether the FAAAA or Carmack Amendment completely preempt Plaintiff Singleton's state claims in this case.

9 Id. (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)).

Therefore, the Court ORDERS the parties to provide the following briefing:

• By December 11, 2023, each party shall file an opening brief addressing whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, including whether the FAAAA or Carmack Amendment completely preempt Singleton's state claims.

• By December 22, 2023, each party shall file a responsive brief addressing the same issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.