Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 11 COFFEY KAYE MYERS OLLEY BY: ROBERT E. MYERS, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 237 62 BY: MICHAEL J. OLLEY, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 56118 Suite 718, Two Baia Plaza Bala 19004 (610) 668-9800 Attorneys For: Plaintif?v IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF BRUCE A. PHILLIPS AND CIVIL ACTION KALITA PHILLIPS W) 2819 S. 67?[1 Street Philadelphia, PA 19142 Plaintiffs JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER NO.: CORPORATION (AMTRAK) Defendant A I COUNT I FELA 1. The plaintiff herein is Bruce A. Phillips, a citizen and resident of the State of residing therein at 2819 S. 67th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19142. 2. This action arises under the Act of Congress, April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65, and amendments thereto, U.S.C.A. Title 45, 51 et seq., and further amended by the Act of Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 11 Congress, approved by the President of the United States on August 11, 1939, Chapter 685 -- First Session of the 76th Congress, known and cited as "The Federal Employers' Liability Act". 3. The defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America and regularly does business in the Eastern District of 4. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned and for a long time prior thereto, the defendant, as a common carrier, operated trains carrying passengers, freight, express packages, baggage and foreign and domestic mail, in commerce, between the different states of the United States and its territories. 5. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the acts of omission and commission, causing the injuries to the plaintiff, were done by the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their employment with and under the control of the defendant. 6. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in interstate commerce between the different states of the United States and its territories. 7. At all times material hereto, plaintiff was employed by defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 8. All of the property, equipment and operations involved in the accident herein referred to were owned by and under the control of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees. 9. As a result of the accident herein referred to, plaintiff has suffered a loss and impairment of earnings and earning power and will suffer the same for an indefinite time in the Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 11 future; has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish and will undergo the same for an inde?nite time in the future; has been obliged to and will have to continue to expend large sums of money in the future in an effort to effect a cure of his aforesaid injuries; has been unable to attend to his usual duties and occupation and will be unable to attend to the same for an indefinite time in the future, all to his great detriment and loss. 10. The accident herein referred to was caused solely and exclusively by the negligence of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff. 11. On or about May 12, 2015, at or about 9:23 pm, the plaintiff was employed by Amtrak. 12. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was dead- heading from Philadelphia to New York City and was located on Amtrak?s Northeast Regional Train No. 188. 13. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located on train No 188 for the convenience of Amtrak and to promote Amtrak?s interstate railroad transportation services. 14. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located on train No 188 for Amtrak?s bene?t and in furtherance of Amtrak?s operational activities. 15. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located in one of the rear railcars of train No. 188. 16. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, as a result of Amtrak?s negligence and carelessness, and further as a result of its violation of federal statutes, federal Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 4 of 11 regulations, local statutes and ordinances, local regulations, and accepted industry rules, regulations, standards, and practices, train No. 188 and all of the cars of that train derailed at or near the rankford Junction in or near the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia, 17. As a result of the aforementioned derailment, plaintiff was violently hurled about the railcar, striking his body on numerous parts of the railcar interior, before slamming onto the floor, as a result of which he sustained the serious and permanent personal injuries set forth herein. 18. At no time did the plaintiff act in a negligent, careless, or improper manner and the entire accident and derailment was caused by Amtrak?s actions and inactions. 19. The negligence of Amtrak, individually and/or through its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, included but is not limited to, failing to properly and safely operate the train, operating the train at an excessive speed; operating the train at a speed and in a manner that was unsafe in light of the geographic conditions and the train and track con?guration; failing to have sufficient personnel to safely operate the train; failing to provide available, necessary and appropriate systems to slow and/or stop the train, if and/or when the engineer failed to properly operate the train and/or failed to operate it at a safe speed under the circumstances and/or when other circumstances caused the train to operate at an unsafe speed; failing to properly promulgate and enforce necessary timetables, bulletins, rules and instructions for the safe operation of the train; its failure to make certain that the train was being operated safely; its failure to properly train and instruct the train crew on safe train operations, particularly at or near the accident site; its failure to properly oversee and control the movement of the train; operating the train in an area of curved track at twice the legal track speed limit; and failure to warn plaintiff of these dangerous conditions. Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 5 of 11 20. The aforesaid accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, and by the defendant's violation of "The Federal Employers' Liability Act," the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act and the Federal Safety Appliances Act, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff. 21. As a result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body. More speci?cally, plaintiff sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple contusions and lacerations of the body, and multiple orthopedic and neurological injuries. Furthermore, plaintiff has sustained emotional trauma. The full extent of plaintiff?s injuries is not presently known. WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims of the defendant, a sum in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars COUNT Ilw BRUCE A. PHILLIPS COMMON LAW CLAIMS 22. The plaintiff herein is Bruce A. Phillips, a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of residing therein at 2819 S. 67th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19142. 23. The defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America with its principal place of business located in Washington, DC. 24. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, because Amtrak was created and is regulated by the laws of the United States. Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 6 of 11 25. The jurisdiction of this Court is further based upon 28 U.S.C. 1332, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, because the plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of and the defendant is a citizen of the District of Columbia. 26. The defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by Virtue of the laws of the United States of America and regularly does business in the Eastern District of 27. At all times material hereto Amtrak was a common carrier for hire and plaintiff was an employee, passenger and business invitee on its train. 28. At the time and place hereinafter mentioned, the acts of omission and commission, causing the injuries to the plaintiff, were done by the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their employment with and under the control of the defendant. 29. All of the property, equipment and operations involved in the accident herein referred to were owned by and under the control of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees. 30. As a result of the accident herein referred to, plaintiff has suffered a loss and impairment of earnings and earning power and will suffer the same for an indefinite time in the future; has undergone great physical pain and mental anguish and will undergo the same for an inde?nite time in the future; has been obliged to and will have to continue to expend large sums of money in the future in an effort to effect a cure of his aforesaid injuries; has been unable to attend to his usual duties and occupation and will be unable to attend to the same for an inde?nite time in the future, all to his great detriment and loss. Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 7 of 11 31. The accident herein referred to was caused solely and exclusively by the negligence of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff. 32. On or about May 12, 2015, at or about 9:23 pm, the plaintiff was employed by Amtrak. 33. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was dead- heading from Philadelphia to New York City and was located on Amtrak?s Northeast Regional Train No. 188. 34. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located on train No 188 for the convenience of Amtrak and to promote Amtrak?s interstate railroad transportation services. 35. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located on train No 188 for Amtrak?s benefit and in furtherance of Amtrak?s operational activities. 36. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, plaintiff was located in one of the rear railcars of train No. 188. 37. On the aforementioned date and at the aforementioned time, as a result of Amtrak?s negligence and carelessness, and further as a result of its violation of federal statutes, federal regulations, local statutes and ordinances, local regulations, and accepted industry rules, regulations, standards, and practices, train No. 188 and all of the cars of that train derailed at or near the Frankford Junction in or near the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia, Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 8 of 11 38. As a result of the aforementioned derailment, plaintiff was Violently hurled about the railcar, striking his body on numerous parts of the railcar interior, before slamming onto the floor, as a result of which he sustained the serious and permanent personal injuries set forth herein. 39. At no time did the plaintiff act in a negligent, careless, or improper manner and the entire accident and derailment was caused by Amtrak?s actions and inactions. 40. The negligence of Amtrak, individually and/or through its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, included but is not limited to, failing to properly and safely operate the train, operating the train at an excessive speed; operating the train at a speed and in a manner that was unsafe in light of the geographic conditions and the train and track con?guration; failing to have sufficient personnel to safely operate the train; failing to provide available, necessary and appropriate systems to slow and/or stop the train, if and/or when the engineer failed to properly operate the train and/or failed to operate it at a safe speed under the circumstances and/or when other circumstances caused the train to operate at an unsafe speed; failing to properly promulgate and enforce necessary timetables, bulletins, rules and instructions for the safe operation of the train; its failure to make certain that the train was being operated safely; its failure to properly train and instruct the train crew on safe train operations, particularly at or near the accident site; its failure to properly oversee and control the movement of the train; operating the train in an area of curved track at twice the legal track speed limit; and failure to warn plaintiff of these dangerous conditions. 41. The aforesaid accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, and by the defendant's violation of the Federal Locomotive Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 9 of 11 Inspection Act and the Federal Safety Appliance Act, and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of the plaintiff. 42. As a result of the aforesaid accident, plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his body. More speci?cally, plaintiff sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple contusions and lacerations of the body, and multiple orthopedic and neurological injuries. Furthermore, plaintiff has sustained emotional trauma. The full extent of plaintiff?s injuries is not presently known. WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims of the defendant, a sum in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars COUNT HI KALTTA PLAINTIFF -- LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 43. All the averments contained in Count II are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 44. The plaintiff herein is Kalita Phillips, a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of residing therein at 2819 S. 67th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19142. 45. The defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the United States of America with its principal place of business located in Washington, DC. 46. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, because Amtrak was created and is regulated bpy the laws of the United States. 47. The jurisdiction of this Court is further based upon 28 U.S.C. 1332, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, because the plaintiffs are citizens of the Commonwealth of and the defendant is a citizen of the District of Columbia. Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 10 of 11 48. As a result of the injuries sustained by husband-plaintiff as aforesaid, wifeuplaintiff has been deprived of the society, companionship and consortium of her husband?plaintiff herein, and she will be deprived of the same for an indefinite time in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims of the defendant, a sum in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars COUNT IV HUSBAND AND WIFE PUNITIVE DAMAGES 45. The plaintiffs incorporate the averments contained in Counts II and as set forth herein at length. 46. At all times material hereto, the defendant, acted in an outrageous, willful and grossly reckless manner. 47. At all times material hereto, the defendant, acted with a wanton disregard and reckless indifference to the rights and welfare of the plaintiffs herein, including but not limited to operating the train on curved track at twice the legal track speed limit. 48. At all times material hereto, the defendant, acted with a wanton disregard and reckless indifference to the rights and welfare of the passengers located on train No. 118 on or about May 12, 2015 at or about 9:23 pm. 49. As a result of the outrageous, willful and grossly reckless conduct of the defendant, in which there was a wanton disregard and reckless indifference to the rights and welfare of the plaintiff herein, plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the defendant. 10 Case Document 1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 11 of 11 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs each claim of the defendant, a sum in excess of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars Respectfully submitted, COFFEY KAYE MYERS OLLEY 5 WM ROBERT E. MYERS, Counsel for Plaintiffs COFFEY KAYE OLLEY Y'fiasQUi Counsel foyfla' tiffs BY: 2% 11 Case Document 1-1 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 1 is 44 (Rev. 12/12) provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ol?the CIVIL COVER SHEET The .IS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor suppjlement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as re uired by law, except as purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEXTPAGE OF THIS FORM) 1. PLAINTIFFS BRUCE A. PHILLIPS AND KALITA PHILLIPS County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff PHILADELPHIA (EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) iarhnlilq?xiddress, and Telephone Number} Coffee Kaye Myers Oilie 718 Two Bala Plaza, Bala PA 19004 (610) 668-9800 AMTRAK NOTE: DEFENDANTS Attorneys {thnoiivnj County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. nited States in September 1974, is required for the use oIthe lerk of Court for the PHILADELPHIA II. OF JURISDICTION (Place on One BoxOnlw DEF and One Boxfor Defendant) PTF DEF (Place cm in One Bm??ir (For Diversity Cases 01in 1:1 1 US. Government 3 Federal Question Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen ofThis State CI 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 1:1 4 ofBusiness In This State 13 2 US Government 11'] 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State El 2 13 2 Incorporated and Principal Place Cl 5 Cl 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship oanrtr'es in Item ot?Busincss In Another State Citizen or Subject ofa 3 13 3 Foreign Nation El 6 Fl 6 Foreign Country IV. (Place an "i in One Box Oniy) I CONTRACT BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES CI 1 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY Cl 625 Drug Related Seizure 1'1 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 f] 375 False Claims Act 1:1 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury 21 USC 881 1:1 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment CI 130 Miller Act El 315 Airplane Product Product Liability Cl 690 Other 28 USC 157 CI 410 Antitrust 13 I40 Negotiable Instrument Liability El 367 Health Care/ 1:1 430 Banks and Banking [1 150 Recovery ovaerpayment CI 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical - PROPERTY RIGHTS - - 5 3 1:1 450 Commerce Enforcement oftludgtnent Slander Personal Injury [3 820 Copyrights 1:1 460 Deportation CI 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability Cl 830 Patent CI 470 Racketeer Influenced and 152 Recovery ot?Det?aultcd Liability Cl 368 Asbestos Personal CI 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans El 340 Marine Injury Product 430 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 3 3 LABOR i - SOCIAL SECURITY - 490 Cable/Sat TV i3 153 Recovery ovaerpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY Cl 710 Fair Labor Standards CI 86} HIA (1395ft) Cl 850 SecuritiestCommodities/ of Veteran?s Benefits Cl 350 Motor Vehicle Cl 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 160 Stockholders? Suits 13 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Cl 720 Labor/Management Cl 863 1?1 890 Other Statutory Actions CI 190 Other Contract Product Liability CI 380 Other Personal Relations CI 864 SSID Title XVI Cl 891 Agricultural Acts C1 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 13 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 1:1 893 Environmental Matters 13 196 Franchise Injury CI 385 Property Damage 75} Family and Medical 13 895 Freedom oflnforniation CI 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice 1?3 790 Other Labor Litigation Cl 896 Arbitration I 3 PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS - 3- PRISONER PETITIONS - CI 791 Employee Retirement SUITS 3 El 899 Administrative Procedure El 210 Land Condemnation Cl 440 Other Civil Rights Hribeas Corpus: Income Security Act CI 870 Taxes Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of CI 220 Foreclosure CI 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision CI 871 IRS?Third Party 1:1 950 Constitutionality of CI 230 Rent Lease Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability [1 290 All Other Real Property El 442 Employment CI 443 Housing/ Accommodations CI 445 Amer. \vaisabilities - Employment CI 446 Amer. W/Disabiltties Other 448 Education C1 C1 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence CI 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: CI 540 Mandamus Other CI 550 Civil Rights CI 555 Prison Condition Cl 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement . - IMMIGRATION El 462 Naturalization Application Cl 465 Other Immigration Actions 26 USC 7609 State Statutes V. (Place an ?i in One Box Univ) 1 Original 2 Removed from 1:1 3 Remanded from E1 4 Reinstatcd or Cl 5 Transferred from El 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation spear VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: on 5/12/1 [j CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, RELATED (See instructions): DEMAND Cite the US. Civil 'Statute under you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; Amtrak enabling statute Briefdescrigion ofcause:' I I I Amtrak trail No. 188 derailed resulting in severe injuries. CHECK YES only ifdemanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: 1:1 Yes 13 No IF JUDGE ?7 DOCKET NUMBER i 77 DATE SIGNATURE napalm tr FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I I RECEIPT it AMOUNT APPLYING IFP MAG. JUDGE Case Document 1-2 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. Addl'essofi?laintif? 2819 67th Phiia?plphia'PA 191-47 AddressofDefendant: St. Station 2nd. Floor, Market Phila. PA Place ofAccident, Incident or Transaction: Frankford ion -- Port RSI. Chmand Phi a. I. PA (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Yeslj No? Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? NOD RELATED CASE, IF ANY: None Known Case Number: Judge Date Terminated: Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: 1. is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? YesEl No% 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out ofthe same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yesm Noal 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yesl:I No% 4. Is this case a second or successive llabeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case ?led by the same individual? Yesij Noge CIVIL: (Place 6/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A. Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases: 1. El Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. CI Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. ft FELA 2 Cl Airplane Personal Injury 3. Jones Acthersonai Injury 3 El Assault, Defamation 4. El Antitrust 4. 121 Marine Personal Injury 5. Patent 5. Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. El Labor-Management Relations 6 Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. El Civil Rights 7 Cl Products Liability 8. Habeas Corpus 8 E3 Products Liability Asbestos 9. Securities Act(s) Cases 9 All other Diversity Cases 10. Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 11. All other Federal Question Cases (Please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Check Appropriate Category) I, 9 l: counsel of record do hereby certify: Pursuant to Local Civil ule 53.2, Section that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive ofinterest and costsRelief other than monetary damages is sought. Attorney DATE: NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only ifthere has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court Qua z? [l4th Atmrneygjatalsaw Attorney CW. 609 (5/2012) Case Document 1-3 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM CIVIL ACTION BRUCE AI AND KALITA . vs . 3 NO. AMTRAK In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: Habeas Corpus Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255. Social Security A Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. Arbitration Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks through that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) Standard Management Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks2015 Wm Plaintiffs DaIe Attorney?at-law Attorney far T?elephone FAX Number EuMail Address (car. 660) 10/02