# SPEED v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · October 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10667378

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 22, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10667378

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the plaintiff’s settlement offer sent to defendant is an “other paper”
- finding that a spreadsheet produced by the defendants, which provided sufficient information to enable the defendants to determine the amount in controversy, was not the type of document that triggered § 1446(b)(3) because “it was not ‘recei[ved] by [a] defendant’”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAKIA SPEED, CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff,
NO. 24-2857-KSM
v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM
MARSTON, J. October 22, 2024
Plaintiff Sakia Speed, individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alaunte
Weathers, sued FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx Ground”), and Three-Way
Transport, Inc. (“Three-Way”), for wrongful death and other related claims in connection with a
tragic motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of Alaunte Weathers. (Doc. No. 1-1.)
The lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on January 19,
2024. (Id.) Approximately five months later, FedEx Ground filed a Statement of Material Facts
in Support of Substitution of Successor Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2352, and requested the
substitution of its successor, Federal Express Corporation, following a merger. (Doc. No. 1-5.)
Defendant Federal Express Corporation immediately removed the action to this Court based on
diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) Speed has moved to remand. (Doc. No. 10.) For the
reasons discussed below, Speed’s motion is granted.
I. Background
This case involves a horrific motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 14, 2023,
in which a tractor trailer operated by an employee or contractor of FedEx Ground and/or Three-
Way1 struck and killed Mr. Weathers on Interstate 65 in Shepherdsville, Kentucky. (Doc. No. 1-
1 ¶¶ 48–56.) Speed seeks damages under Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act
and brings related negligence claims. (Id. ¶¶ 73–159.)
When Speed filed her complaint, she was a citizen of Indiana, and FedEx Ground was a

citizen of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and Pennsylvania, the state where it maintained its
principal place of business. (Doc. No. 1-1 ¶¶ 1, 4; Doc. No. 11 at 3.) On June 28, 2024, FedEx
Ground filed a “Statement of Material Facts in Support of Substitution of Successor Pursuant to
Pa. R. Civ. P. 2352” (“Statement of Material Facts”), requesting the substitution of Federal
Express Corporation as the successor of FedEx Ground due to the merger of FedEx Ground into
Federal Express Corporation that took effect June 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 1-5.) That same day,
Federal Express Corporation removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and
1446(b)(3), asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1.) In its notice of
removal, Federal Express Corporation submits that it is a citizen of Delaware, its state of
incorporation, and Tennessee, where it maintains its principal place of business. (Id. ¶ 16.)

On July 26, 2024, Speed filed a motion to remand this action back to the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, contending that removal is improper and FedEx
Ground’s Statement of Material Facts in the state court action does not provide a basis for
removal. (Doc. No. 10.) Federal Express Corporation opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 11.)
II. Legal Standard
A defendant may remove a civil action brought in state court if the case could have
originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“[A]ny civil action brought in a
State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be

1 On May 28, 2024, the Court of Common Pleas sustained Three-Way’s preliminary objections and
dismissed Three-Way with prejudice from the action. (Doc. No. 1-4.)
removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place where such action is pending.”). As relevant here, a district court exercises
original jurisdiction over a civil action “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000” and “is between citizens of different [s]tates.” Id. § 1332(a). In a removal

action based on diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship both when
the case commenced (i.e., when the case was filed in state court) and when the matter was
removed to federal court. See In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 855 F.3d 126, 150–51 (3d Cir. 2017),
as amended (Apr. 19, 2017) (“Since this case was removed to federal court, diversity must have
existed both at the time the . . . plaintiffs’ state court complaint was filed and at the time of
removal.”).
Where, as here, removal is based solely on diversity jurisdiction, the forum defendant
rule applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Restaurant Inc.,
902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018). The forum defendant rule provides that “[a] civil action
otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of

the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which
such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The forum defendant rule “is procedural rather
than jurisdictional, except where ‘the case could not initially have been filed in federal court.’”
Encompass Ins. Co., 902 F.3d at 152 (quoting Korea Exch. Bank, N.Y. Branch v. Trackwise Sales
Corp., 66 F.3d 46, 50 (3d Cir. 1995)).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), which governs the procedure for removal of civil actions
from state court to federal court, a defendant is typically required to file a notice of removal
within thirty days after receiving a copy of the initial pleading or summons. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b)(1). If the case is not removable based on the initial pleading, a defendant may still file
a notice of removal later under certain limited circumstances—namely, a defendant may file a
notice of removal “within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise,
of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” Id. § 1446(b)(3).

“[T]he burden is on the removing party to establish [both] federal jurisdiction,” Johnson
v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 346 (3d Cir. 2013), and “compliance with all
pertinent procedural requirements,” Excel Pharm. Servs., LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 389 F.
Supp. 3d 289, 292 (E.D. Pa. 2019). Thus, “[a] district court can remand a case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction or for a defect in the removal procedure.” Excel Pharm. Servs., LLC, 389 F.
Supp. 3d at 292 (internal quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A motion to remand
based on any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within thirty days
after the filing of the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In reviewing this motion to remand, the Court is mindful that “[t]he removal statute
should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in favor of remand.” Johnson, 724 F.3d at

346 (quoting Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864–65 (3d Cir. 1996)). “It is well settled that
district courts should remand close or doubtful cases for two reasons. First, remand will avoid
the possibility of a later determination that the district court lacked jurisdiction and, secondly,
remand is normally to a state court which clearly has jurisdiction to decide the case.” Glenmede
Tr. Co. v. Dow Chem. Co., 384 F. Supp. 423, 433–34 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
III. Discussion
At the center of the parties’ dispute is the effect FedEx Ground’s Statement of Material
Facts had on the removability of this action. It is undisputed that, when Speed filed her
complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, the forum defendant rule
prevented removal because FedEx Ground maintained its principal place of business in
Pennsylvania and thus was a citizen of Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1-1 ¶ 4; Doc No. 10 at 17; Doc.
No. 11 at 3.)
In its notice of removal, Federal Express Corporation contends that the Statement of

Material Facts filed in the state court action, which attached the Certificate of Merger of FedEx
Ground into Federal Express Corporation approved by the Delaware Secretary of State, qualifies
as “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may be first ascertained
that the case is one which is or has become removable” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). (Doc.
No. 1 ¶¶ 5–12; Doc No. 1-5.) Federal Express Corporation asserts that the filing substituted
Federal Express Corporation, a citizen of Delaware and Tennessee, for FedEx Ground and
rendered the forum defendant rule inapplicable. (Id.) Federal Express Corporation argues that it
properly removed the state court action to this Court pursuant to § 1446(b)(3) following the
filing of the Statement of Material Facts. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 11–12.)
Speed puts forth three arguments in favor of remand. (Doc. No. 10 at 13–26.) She

argues that the filing of the Statement of Material Facts did not trigger removability under §
1446(b)(3) for two reasons: (1) § 1446(b)(3) does not permit a defendant to base removal on the
defendant’s own action that created diversity jurisdiction (Id. at 17–20), and (2) the filing of the
Statement of Material Facts has no substantive effect on the state action, given that this filing is
not mandatory under Pennsylvania’s Rules of Civil Procedure, and Pennsylvania’s Associations
Code permits pending claims against a merged entity to be prosecuted as if the merger had not
occurred (Id. at 20–23). She also argues that the time-of-filing rule—i.e., the requirement that
there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time the case was filed in state court
and at the time of removal—precludes Federal Express Corporation’s removal action. (Id. at 13–
17.) Finally, she argues that that the forum defendant rule still applies because FedEx Ground
continues to maintain its principal place of business in Pennsylvania and, therefore, remains a
citizen of Pennsylvania even after its merger into Federal Express Corporation, citing a webpage
that lists Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the headquarters of FedEx Ground. (Id. at 23–26.) As

discussed below, the Court finds that removal here is procedurally defective under § 1446(b)(3),
and therefore, the Court does not need to reach Speed’s additional arguments.
The Court must first decide whether Federal Express Corporation properly removed the
state court action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). The Court agrees with Speed that FedEx
Ground’s filing of its Statement of Material Facts in the state court action did not trigger the
thirty-day window for removability under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) and, therefore, Federal Express
Corporation’s removal action pursuant to § 1446(b)(3) was improper.2

2 In reaching this conclusion, the Court does not invoke the “voluntary-involuntary” rule that implicitly
underlies Speed’s argument that § 1446(b)(3) does not allow a defendant to create diversity through its
own action and subsequently claim that action as the basis for removal. (See Doc. No. 10 at 17–19.)
Under the judicially created voluntary-involuntary rule, “a case that is not initially removable cannot
become removable except by a voluntary act of the plaintiff, such as amendment of the pleadings or
voluntary dismissal of the non-diverse defendant.” Newman v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 19-cv-4496, 2019 WL
6251194, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2019). This rule formed the basis for a recent remand order from
another court in this district in a similar case involving Federal Express Corporation, Laspino v. Fed.
Express Corp., No. 24-cv-2874. (See Doc No. 13-1.)

While most circuit courts have adopted the voluntary-involuntary rule in some form, see Caribe Chem.
Distribs., Corp. v. Southern Agric. Insecticides, Inc., 96 F.4th 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2024) (collecting cases), the
Third Circuit has never explicitly adopted the rule, see Chaudhary v. Atria Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 23-cv-
01419, 2023 WL 5596040, at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2023) (“Although the Third Circuit has not explicitly
applied the voluntary-involuntary rule, almost all other circuit courts have embraced the rule.”). Further,
courts within this district have disagreed as to its applicability. Compare Newman, 2019 WL 6251194, at
*1–2 (applying the voluntary-involuntary rule to hold that the plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint,
following the state court’s dismissal of the non-diverse defendant and order to file an amended complaint,
was not a voluntary act of the plaintiff that made the state court action removable), with Bolger v.
Utermohlen, 485 F. Supp. 3d 588, 592–94 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (holding that the “voluntary-involuntary [rule]
did not survive Congress’ 1949 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) [and] “the judge-made rule must
yield to the plain language of [§ 1446(b)(3)],” therefore the state court’s order severing the plaintiff’s
claims and transferring the plaintiff’s claims against the non-diverse defendants created diversity
jurisdiction and served as a valid basis for removal under § 1446(b)(3)). Because the Court finds that
removal was improper here based on the plain language of § 1446(b)(3), the Court need not reach the
question of the validity or applicability of the voluntary-involuntary rule.
Section 1446(b)(3) permits removal “within thirty days after receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper
from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.”
28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (emphasis added). “It is the cardinal canon of statutory interpretation

that a court must begin with the statutory language. . . . When the words of a statute are
unambiguous, then this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete.” In re Phila.
Newspapers LLC, 599 F.3d 298, 304 (3d Cir. 2010), as amended (May 7, 2010) (quoting Conn.
Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992)). “The plain language of the statute
focuses only on what a defendant receives. Thus, the statute does not contemplate that the thirty-
day clock would be triggered by information that the defendant already possesses or knows from
its own records.” McLaren v. UPS Store Inc., 32 F.4th 232, 238 (3d Cir. 2022) (finding that a
spreadsheet produced by the defendants, which provided sufficient information to enable the
defendants to determine the amount in controversy, was not the type of document that triggered
§ 1446(b)(3) because “it was not ‘recei[ved] by [a] defendant’”) (alterations in original) (quoting

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)).
While the documents that trigger § 1446(b)(3) must be those that the defendant receives,
the documents “need not come from the plaintiff” and can also include, for example, motions
“filed by other parties” and court orders. McLaren, 32 F.4th at 238 n.3. Furthermore, the terms
“an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” used in § 1446(b)(3) “‘only address
developments within a case,’ not a document . . . which is separate and apart from the case.”
League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 921 F.3d 378, 384 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting A.S.
ex rel. Miller v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 769 F.3d 204, 210 (3d Cir. 2014)).
In its notice of removal, Federal Express Corporation implies that the Statement of
Material Facts is the “other paper” that triggered removability under § 1446(b)(3). (Doc. No. 1
¶¶ 11–12.) And, in Federal Express Corporation’s opposition to Speed’s motion to remand, it
asserts that the Certificate of Merger approved by the Delaware Secretary of State and attached

to the Statement of Material Facts is the “other paper” that allowed for removal pursuant to §
1446(b)(3). (Doc. No. 11 at 15.) But neither document constitutes the type of “other paper from
which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable” that
would enable Federal Express Corporation to remove this action under § 1446(b)(3).
While Federal Express Corporation is correct that district courts within this circuit have
given the term “other paper” in § 1446(b)(3) an “embracive construction including a wide array
of documents” (Doc. No. 11 at 14 (quoting Marchiori v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., No.
Civ. A. 05-5685, 2006 WL 724445, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2006))), every decision cited by
Federal Express Corporation finding that § 1446(b)(3) was triggered by an “other paper”
interprets that term to include a document that the defendant received as part of the state court

action. See, e.g., Marchiori, 2006 WL 724445, at *2 (holding that the plaintiff’s response to the
defendants’ request for admissions constitutes an “other paper”); Hall v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
340 F. Supp. 2d 596, 598 (D. Vi. 2004) (finding that the plaintiff’s settlement offer sent to
defendant is an “other paper”); cf. Entrekin v. Fisher Sci. Inc., 146 F. Supp. 2d 594, 615 (D.N.J.
2001) (“[A settlement] offer on the part of the defendant, as opposed to the plaintiff, also
apparently does not implicate the [sic] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)’s time restriction even if recorded in
writing because the statutory provision requires receipt by the defendant, not the plaintiff, of the
amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper.”).
The Statement of Material Facts plainly falls outside the ambit of § 1446(b)(3) because it
is a filing that FedEx Ground made, rather than received, in the state court action. See McLaren,
32 F.4th at 241 (“[Section] 1446(b)[(3)]’s text dictates that the thirty-day cloc[k] [is] triggered by
documents a defendant receives, and not by what the defendant subjectively knew or the

documents in its possession.”). And the Certificate of Merger certified by the Delaware
Secretary of State is a document that was issued to Federal Express Corporation separate and
apart from this action and only became relevant to the case when FedEx Ground filed it as an
attachment to its Statement of Material Facts. Thus, it too does not constitute an “other paper”
under § 1446(b)(3). See League of Women Voters of Pa., 921 F.3d at 384 (“[D]ocuments not
generated within the state litigation generally are not recognized as ‘other papers’ that can start a
30-day removal period under § 1446(b)”) (citing 14C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 3731 (4th ed. rev. 2018)). Because Federal Express
Corporation’s removal was predicated on one or both of these documents, the Court finds that
Federal Express Corporation improperly removed this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1446(b)(3). Based on this procedural defect, and because the Court must strictly construe the
removal statute and resolve all doubts in favor of remand, the Court grants Speed’s timely
motion to remand.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Speed’s motion to remand is granted. An appropriate
Order follows.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10667378. Public record. Not legal advice.