Zern v. BigAirBag B.V.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedDecember 21, 2022
Docket3:22-cv-00665
StatusUnknown

This text of Zern v. BigAirBag B.V. (Zern v. BigAirBag B.V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zern v. BigAirBag B.V., (D. Conn. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LAUREN ZERN PPA KIM ZERN, ) 3:22-CV-665 (SVN) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BIG AIR BAG B.V., ) Defendant. ) December 21, 2022 RULING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Sarala V. Nagala, United States District Judge. Minor Plaintiff Lauren Zern, through her next friend and mother Kim Zern, brought this product liability action in state court against Defendant, BigAirBag B.V., claiming that she suffered injury from a defect in a product Defendant supplied to an adventure park. After Defendant removed the case to federal court, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to remand the case back to state court so it can be consolidated with her pending negligence action against the owners and operators of the adventure park. For the reasons described below, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint, ECF No. 1-2, contains the following allegations. On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff went to Thrillz Adventure Park in Danbury, Connecticut. Compl. ¶ 9. She jumped off a trampoline launch pad onto an improperly inflated airbag that was manufactured by Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9. Plaintiff sustained injuries to her legs, hips, and back, and her mother incurred expenses for medical care and treatment. Id. ¶ 13, 15. Thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a negligence action in Connecticut state trial court against several corporations who together owned and operated the park: Thrillz, LLC d/b/a Thrillz High Flying Adventure Park; Thrillz Franchise Corp., LLC; Thrillz Franchising, LLC; Thrillz Supply, LLC; and Performance Rigging Solutions, LLC (collectively, “the Thrillz defendants”). Civ. No. FST-CV-20-6047552-S; see generally ECF No. 17 at 11 (state court complaint). In April of 2022, while that case was in discovery, Plaintiff filed the present action against Defendant in state court, Civ. No. FST-CV22-6056414-S, claiming that Defendant violated the Connecticut Product Liability Act (“CPLA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572m et seq. See generally

Compl. Defendant subsequently removed to federal court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has now moved to remand the case back to state court, urging the Court to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction in light of the pending negligence action against the Thrillz defendants. ECF No. 17. II. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove any civil action brought in state court over which the federal district court has original jurisdiction. Relevant here, federal district 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).1

A federal district court may nevertheless abstain from exercising jurisdiction under certain circumstances. “The doctrine of abstention, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of

1 Neither party disputes that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the case as currently captioned, given that Plaintiff is a citizen of New York, Defendant is a citizen of the Netherlands, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3–6. Plaintiff, however, represents that, if the case is remanded, she intends to seek consolidation of this action with the action against the Thrillz defendants in state court, at which point the forum defendant rule would operate to destroy federal diversity jurisdiction because those defendants are citizens of Connecticut. See ECF No. 17 at 7 (discussing Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB v. Savvidis, No. 3:20-CV-1522 (SRU), 2021 WL 106276, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2021) (remanding action back to Connecticut state court under the “forum defendant rule,” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), because the defendant was a citizen of Connecticut)). The forum defendant rule does not apply to the present motion, however, given that Defendant removed this action to federal court before it was consolidated with Plaintiff’s action against the Thrillz defendants. a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it.” Colo. River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976) (quoting Cty. of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188–89 (1959)). Although there are several traditional categories of abstention, see De Cisneros v. Younger, 871 F.2d 305, 307 (2d Cir. 1989) (listing the categories of abstention), a federal court may invoke Colorado River to abstain in cases involving “exceptional

circumstances,” id., such as when “state and federal courts exercise concurrent jurisdiction simultaneously.” Burnett v. Physician’s Online, Inc., 99 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1996). “The underlying principles of the Colorado River doctrine rest on considerations of ‘wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.’” Radioactive, J.V. v. Manson, 153 F. Supp. 2d 462, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Colo. River Water Conserv. Dist., 360 U.S. at 817). These considerations, however, must be balanced against the “virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Colo. River Water Conserv. Dist., 360 U.S. at 817. “Although the decision whether to abstain on Colorado River grounds is committed to the

district court’s discretion,” such discretion “must be exercised within the narrow and specific limits prescribed by” the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Woodford v. Cmty. Action Agency of Greene Cty., Inc., 239 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting, in part, Vill. of Westfield v. Welch’s, 170 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Colorado River abstention is appropriate only when multiple courts “exercise concurrent jurisdiction simultaneously,” Burnett, 99F.3d at 76, the district court must first determine whether, as a threshold matter, the two proceedings at issue are indeed “concurrent,” and then whether they are “parallel.” Dittmer v. Cty. of Suffolk, 146 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 1998). Two proceedings are parallel “when substantially the same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issue in another forum.” Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84, 100 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Dittmer, 146 F.3d at 118). Put another way, two proceedings are parallel when “there is an identity of parties, and the issues and relief sought are the same.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Karp, 108 F.3d 17, 22 (2d Cir. 1997). If the two actions are parallel, the district court weighs six factors to determine whether

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.
360 U.S. 185 (Supreme Court, 1959)
Bull & Bear Group, Inc. v. Fuller
786 F. Supp. 388 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Breen v. Synthes-Stratec, Inc.
947 A.2d 383 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2008)
Bradley v. Kelly
479 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
AURELIUS CAPITAL MASTER, INC. v. MBIA Ins. Corp.
695 F. Supp. 2d 68 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Radioactive, J v. v. Manson
153 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Mazuma Holding Corp. v. Bethke
1 F. Supp. 3d 6 (E.D. New York, 2014)
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Connecticut, 2014)
Pike Co. v. Universal Concrete Prods., Inc.
284 F. Supp. 3d 376 (W.D. New York, 2018)
Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc.
562 A.2d 517 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Smulley v. Mutual of Omaha Bank
634 F. App'x 335 (Second Circuit, 2016)
Allstate Insurance v. Elzanaty
916 F. Supp. 2d 273 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Telesco v. Telesco Fuel & Masons' Materials, Inc.
765 F.2d 356 (Second Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zern v. BigAirBag B.V., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zern-v-bigairbag-bv-ctd-2022.