Garza-Castro v. Silchuk Transport LLC

Case No. 25-cv-1766-JPG (S.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2025) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois · December 23, 2025 · No. 25-cv-1766-JPG

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Jose Danniel Garza-Castro’s motion to remand a negligent-selection action against a freight broker and other defendants. The court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s preemption provision supplied, at most, an ordinary conflict-preemption defense and did not completely preempt the state-law claim or create federal-question jurisdiction. The court remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Cumberland County, Illinois, and denied other pending motions without prejudice.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Writing for the Court
J. Phil Gilbert
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Decision date
December 23, 2025
Docket number
25-cv-1766-JPG
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved to remand a removed state-law negligence action. The district court granted the motion, remanded the case to Illinois state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), and denied the other pending motions without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Standard of review
The court determined de novo whether it had subject matter jurisdiction and whether removal was authorized under the federal-question jurisdiction and removal statutes.
Precedential value
unpublished district court memorandum and order; persuasive authority only
Disposition
remanded

Topics

subject matter jurisdictioncivil procedurestatutory interpretationfederalism

Practice areas

civil procedureremoval and remandfederal jurisdictiontransportation lawpreemption

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the FAAAA's alleged preemption of Illinois negligent-selection law created federal-question jurisdiction supporting removal.
  2. Whether the district court was required to remand because Garza-Castro's well-pleaded complaint asserted no federal cause of action.
  3. Whether the court could decide the other pending motions after determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. Ordinary conflict preemption, which may provide a federal defense to a state-law claim, does not create federal-question jurisdiction or support removal when the federal issue does not appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.
  2. The action must be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the complaint did not plead a federal cause of action and the court lacked original federal-question jurisdiction.
  3. The court lacked authority to rule on the other pending motions and therefore denied them without prejudice.

Key quotations

It is a question of ordinary, conflict preemption when federal law provides a defense to a state law claim. (2)
Thus, the preemption Blue Marlin invokes is ordinary, conflict preemption, which may be a defense to Garza-Castro’s negligent selection claim but which is not a basis for federal question jurisdiction. (3)

Factual background

Garza-Castro was injured when his vehicle was struck from behind by a tractor-trailer. He sued entities associated with the other vehicle, including freight broker Blue Marlin Logistics Group, Inc., alleging that Blue Marlin negligently selected the carrier and driver. Blue Marlin removed the state-law action, asserting that the negligent-selection claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

Procedural history

Garza-Castro filed an Illinois state-court action arising from a tractor-trailer accident, including a negligent-selection claim against freight broker Blue Marlin Logistics Group, Inc. Blue Marlin removed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a), asserting that the claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The district court concluded that the asserted preemption was ordinary conflict preemption and therefore only a defense to the state-law claim, not a basis for federal-question jurisdiction. The court granted remand and denied the remaining motions without prejudice.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Cumberland County, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The other pending motions were denied without prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…