WILLIAMSPORT – A lawsuit which alleged that a gymnastics camp counselor sexually abused the plaintiffs’ child and that the facility staff threatened the child and failed to report the abuse as required by law, will remain in a federal court.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann denied a motion to remand from plaintiffs Kelly Chinea and Julio Chinea on May 19.
In December 2021, the Chineas first sued Nathaniel Singer and seven entities bearing the Camp Woodward name in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas.
“The Chineas’ complaint, which raised various state-law claims, alleged that Singer, a former Camp Woodward gymnastics camp counselor, sexually abused their child in the summers of 2018 and 2019; that the Camp had employed Singer despite previous reports of inappropriate sexual conduct; and that Camp staff challenged and threatened their child after she reported Singer’s inappropriate conduct and later failed to report the abuse as required under Pennsylvania law,” U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann said.
“Today’s decision deals not with the merits of these serious allegations, but a question of jurisdiction. In January, Woodward Pennsylvania, LLC removed the case to this Court, alleging that diversity jurisdiction was proper because of the eight named parties, seven had not been properly served, six were nominal defendants, and among those that remained, none were forum defendants. The Chineas disagreed, and sought to remand their case to state court.”
The Chineas argued that their complaint included four federal jurisdiction-barring forum defendants, each with a principal place of business at 134 Sports Camp Drive, Woodward, Pennsylvania: (1) Woodward Camp, Inc. doing business as “Woodward Gymnastics Camp” and “Woodward U”; (2) Woodward Camp Properties, Inc.; (3) The Woodward Foundation; and (4) Sports Management Group, Inc. doing business as “Woodward Gymnastics Camp”.
However, Brann disagreed.
“A common factual thread runs through the removing defendant’s argument that neither are met here: When the removing defendant purchased the property in 2011, the four defendants’ interest in the Camp ended; since then, they have been dormant, having neither employees nor a stake in the Camp. In the removing defendant’s view, this sequence, which it supports through declarations of its Director of Corporate Governance and its on-site business operations director, compels two findings – both fatal to the Chineas’ attempt to remand,” Brann said.
“First, because the Woodward Camp employee they served is neither an employee of the pre-sale defendants nor their agent, no forum defendants have been served. And second, because no claim can arise against the pre-sale defendants (given that their involvement ceased years before), the pre-sale defendants’ joinder was fraudulent.”
In response, Brann explained that the Chineas cited Pennsylvania incorporation documents and Pennsylvania Department of State verifications, which they contended show that these pre-sale defendants continued to subsist and have a principal place of business at 134 Sports Camp Drive, Woodward, Pennsylvania – the Camp’s address.
Furthermore, they argued that the Court “must accept as true their allegation that these entities were directly and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions culmination in their child’s sexual assault”, but according to Brann, “neither gain purchase.”
“To start, the Third Circuit has ‘made it clear that a court can look to more than just the pleading allegations to identify indicia of fraudulent joinder.’ Thus, while a ‘court must not step ‘from the threshold jurisdictional issue into a decision on the merits,’ it is not ‘precluded…from a limited consideration of reliable evidence that the defendant may proffer to support the removal’; this decision remains well within those confines. Second, the Chineas’ reference to the pre-sale defendants’ incorporation documents and the Department of State’s verification of their subsistence are inapposite,” Brann said.
“These documents show that these entities were at one point registered, but they do not evidence an ongoing business or in any way defeat the removing defendant’s declarations that attest to their dormancy after the 2011 sale. As a result, this Court finds the forum-defendant rule inapplicable; none of these four pre-sale defendants have been properly served or joined. Jurisdiction is therefore proper.”
Subsequently, Brann denied both of the plaintiffs’ motions, both to remand the case to the Centre County Court of Common Pleas and for costs and attorney’s fees.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:22-cv-00134
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com