Pullman Co. v. Jenkins

1939-01-16

Headline: Widow’s wrongful-death suit kept in California state court as Court blocks Pullman Company’s attempt to move the case to federal court, limiting company removals in multi-defendant suits.

Holding: The Court held that the Pullman Company failed to show it could properly move this wrongful-death suit into federal court, so the case must be returned to the state court because removal was improper.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for non-resident companies to move multi-defendant state suits to federal court.
Requires companies to prove separability based on the original state complaint.
Prevents ignoring resident or fictitiously named co-defendants when seeking removal.

Topics: moving state lawsuits to federal court, wrongful death, multi-defendant lawsuits, employer and employee liability

Summary

Background

Mrs. Jenkins and her son sued after her husband, a Southern Pacific conductor, was fatally struck during an altercation with a passenger named Kash. The state complaint named the Southern Pacific Company (a Kentucky corporation), the Pullman Company (an Illinois corporation), Kash, several Pullman employees including a porter sued as a John Doe, and others. The Pullman Company filed to move the case into federal court; the state pleading was later amended and some defendants were identified, and the Southern Pacific was dismissed after a settlement.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the Pullman Company could move the case into federal court. The Court said that right depends on whether the controversy as to Pullman was a separable dispute between citizens of different states, judged by the plaintiffs’ original state complaint at the time Pullman asked to move the case. The Court found the original complaint showed different alleged faults: the porter for permitting Kash to board the sleeper and the gate tender for permitting Kash into the station. No facts tied Pullman’s liability to Southern Pacific’s conduct. The Court also held Pullman could not ignore the porter merely because he was sued as a John Doe; Pullman had the burden to show the porter was a non-resident when seeking removal. Because Pullman failed that showing, removal was improper.

Real world impact

The decision sends the case back to state court and clarifies that companies seeking to move multi-defendant state suits into federal court must prove separability at the time of removal. Fictitious-name defendants and resident employees cannot be disregarded when testing removal rights.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black concurred in the result but disagreed with parts of the opinion’s reasoning; he emphasized that the original complaint and its amendments showed a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and cautioned against expanding removal beyond prior limits.