Joseph Brent Mattingly v. R.J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC, et al.

This case filed under 42 U.S.C. §§51, et seq. (the Federal Employers Liability Act, or “FELA”), presents three questions, to wit:

1. Whether, and to what extent, the “veil-piercing” provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§51, 55 and 57 compel disregard of state corporate charter laws which frustrate and circumvent the federal public policy and purpose of FELA.

2. In light of the clear conflict among the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, what is the test under FELA for determining when a parent railroading company which has segregated its railroading operations into purportedly “common carrier” and “non-common carrier” subsidiary companies is itself deemed a “common carrier,” and it and its subsidiaries thus subject to liability under FELA, for the injuries to its employees nominally employed by a purportedly non-common carrier but railroadrelated subsidiary?

3. Whether, and to what extent, the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. 56(d) to file an Affidavit to show what a non-movant cannot present facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment can serve as the basis for granting summary judgment to a party who has not moved for summary judgment where the trial court has provided no notice of its intent to grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party, as required by F.R.Civ.P. 56(f ).