govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-2_22-cv-00068-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
NORTHERN DIVISION 
 
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,  
 
  Plaintiff,  
 
 v.  
 
PAULINE MAGIN, et al., 
 
  Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
  
 No. 2:22-CV-68 RLW 
 
ORDER CONCERNING JURISDICTION 
 This matter is before the Court on review of the file. “Courts have an independent 
obligation to determine whether subject -matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 
U.S. 77, 94 (2010). “Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The  requirement that 
jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter springs from the nature and limits of the judicial 
power of the United States and is inflexible and without exception.” Kessler v. National Enters., 
Inc., 347 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8
th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and quoted case omitted). Statutes 
conferring diversity jurisdiction are strictly construed, Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214, 1215 
(8
th Cir. 1992), and the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts is on the party asserting 
jurisdiction. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., Inc., 298 U.S. 178, 189 
(1936). “[T]he court may . . . insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be 
dismissed[.]” Id.  
 BNSF’s Amended Complaint asserts that federal jurisd iction exists based on diversity of 
citizenship. (ECF No. 9, ¶  19).
1 The diversity jurisdiction statut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), provides 
 
1 BNSF also purports to invoke jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act  (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 
§ 4. “The FAA does not itself confer jurisdiction.” UHC Mgmt. Co. v. Computer Scis. Corp., 148 
F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1998). 
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  98     Filed: 07/17/23     Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
that federal district courts will have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 
controversy excee ds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 
between . . . citizens of different States[.]” 
 “It is axiomatic that a court may not proceed at all in a case unless it has jurisdiction.”  
Crawford v. F. Hoffman -La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760, 764 (8th Cir. 2001). The jurisdiction al 
minimum is a requirement of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and is not waivable by the parties. 
15A James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 102.103 (3d ed. 2023). Either party 
may raise the issue at any time. Id. If the parties do not raise the issue , the Court must raise it on 
its own initiative. Id.  
“A complaint that alleges the jurisdictional amount in good faith will suffice to confer 
jurisdiction, but the complaint will be dismissed if it appears  to a legal certainty that the claim is 
really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Peterson v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 867 F.3d 992, 
995 (8th Cir. 2017) . Put another way, “[t]he district court has subject matter jurisdiction in a 
diversity case when a fact finder could legally conclude, from the pleadings and proof adduced to 
the court before trial, that the damages that the plaintiff suffered are greater than $75,000.” Kopp 
v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002) . The party asserting jurisdiction may not aggregate 
separate and dist inct claims to satisfy the amount -in-controversy requirement. Snyder v. Harris , 
394 U.S. 332, 336 (1969) 
Here, BNSF asserts only that “upon information and belief, the amount in controversy 
exceeds $75,000.” (ECF No. 9 at ¶ 19). BNSF does not address whether each defendant’s 
underlying state -court action, viewed separately, meet s this requirement. Based on BNSF’s 
Amended Complaint, the Court can only assume that BNSF is aggregating Defendants’ claims to 
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  98     Filed: 07/17/23     Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
satisfy the amount -in-controversy requirement. As stated above, such aggregation is improper. 
Snyder, 394 U.S. at 336.  
BNSF is not saved by the fact that it attached Defendants’ state -court pe titions to the 
Amended Complaint. Having reviewed each of the underlying petitions, the Court cannot say that 
a fact finder could legally conclude that each defendant suffered damages exceeding $75,000. 
Defendants’ state-court petitions contain only broad allusions to the damages suffered —they do 
not identify any particular injuries. For example, Defendants Brent Powers and William Magin 
assert that they “suffered loss of affection, care, companionship, and services[.]” (ECF No. 9-2 at 
13). Several others merely assert that they were “injured.” (ECF No. 9-3). Confoundingly, BNSF 
does not provide  any additional detail in its Amended Complaint. The Court has no way of 
gleaning the severity of each defendant’s injuries or a plausible amount in controversy based on 
Defendants’ pleadings or BNSF’s Amended Complaint.
2  
There are thirty defendants in this case, each with their own claims against BNSF. The 
underlying state-law matters involve negligence, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. Two of 
the defendants were not involved in the accident that forms the basis of this entire case. Yet BNSF 
simply asserts that “upon information and belief, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” 
(ECF No. 9 at ¶ 19).  Without more, it is unclear whether a fact finder could determine that each 
defendant suffered damages exceeding $75,000.  
BNSF has not met its burden of proving all jurisdictional  facts. See McNutt, 298 U.S. at 
189. “[T]he court may . . . insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be 
dismissed[.]” Id. Thus, the Court will grant BNSF twenty- one (21) days to file an amended 
 
2 BNSF is also not saved by supplemental jurisdiction. While supplemental jurisdiction may extend 
to claims that are part of the same case or controversy, BNSF does not invoke supplemental 
jurisdiction in its Amended Complaint. 
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  98     Filed: 07/17/23     Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
complaint that alleg es establishing this Court’s jurisdiction . Failure to do so will result in the 
dismissal of this action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.3 
 Accordingly,  
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by August 7, 2023, Plaintiff shall file an Amended 
Complaint that alleges facts establishing the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not timely and fully comply with this 
Order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.   
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John 
A. Bonventre is GRANTED. (ECF No. 97).  
 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions in this matter are DENIED 
as moot. (ECF Nos. 41, 44, 46, 55, 77, 93, 94).  
 
             
      RONNIE L. WHITE 
      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Dated this 17th day of July, 2023.  
 
3 The Court understands that the parties are eager to dispose of this matter because it may impact 
the trajectory of the underlying state -court actions. The Court cannot, however, take up the 
substantive issues in this case unless and until it is satisfied that it has subject- matter jurisdiction. 
See Crawford, 267 F.3d at 764. Further, while the parties have already attempted to brief several 
substantive issues—including whether Amtrak is a governmental entity and whether governmental 
entities may require individuals to sign arbitration agreements  before utilizing governmental 
services—the parties’ pleadings are woefully lacking in precedent and clarity. Even if the Court 
could take up these issues at this juncture, it would insist upon further briefing by the parties. As 
to the parties’ request for a hearing, the Court is unconvinced that they would be able to provide 
any information that could not have been presented in their briefings.  
Case: 2:22-cv-00068-HEA     Doc. #:  98     Filed: 07/17/23     Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight