United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bell (“Plaintiff”) has sued David Doe alleging
negligence in the operation of machinery causing injury to
Mr. Bell and seeks to hold Werner Global Logistics, Inc., and
Werner Enterprises, Inc., (collectively,
“Defendants”) liable for such negligence under
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-183.
Bell now moves for remand of this case to Connecticut
reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Bell allegedly was a forklift operator in Connecticut. Compl.
¶¶ 1, 6. Mr. Doe allegedly worked for Werner
Enterprises, Inc. and had been assigned to deliver Office
Depot merchandise to a warehouse (“Warehouse”)
where Mr. Bell allegedly worked. Id. at Footnote 1.
Werner Global Logistics, Inc., or Werner Enterprises, Inc.,
both of which maintain a principle place of business in
Nebraska, allegedly owned the tractor trailer. Id.
¶¶ 2, 10.
February 3, 2016, Mr. Doe allegedly had been operating a
tractor trailer at the loading dock at the Warehouse.
Id. ¶ 2. When Mr. Doe drove the tractor trailer
forward, he allegedly caused the forklift operated by Mr.
Bell to fall to the ground. Id. at 5. Mr. Bell
allegedly suffered serious bodily injury and incurred
significant medical expenses. Id. ¶¶ 7-8.
Bell sued Defendants in Connecticut Superior Court, the
Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford. ECF No. 1-2.
Defendants removed the case to this Court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now moves to remand this
case to state court. ECF No. 14.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75, 000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between .
. . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, “any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by
the defendant . . . to the district court of the United
States for the district . . . embracing the place where such
action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
defendant has the burden of demonstrating that removal of a
case to federal court is proper. Calif. Pub.
Emp'rs' Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom, Inc., 368 F.3d
86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004); Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt,
Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 2000).