Skip to main content

Fraudulent Joinder in Southern District of Florida Explained

In DE VARONA v. DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS, LLC,  23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D253a (S.D. Fla. May 6, 2012), the plaintiff moved to remand a federal court case to state court on the grounds that the defendant's store manager was properly joined as resident defendant and that amount in controversy was less than $75,000. Judge Ungaro hearing the motion denied the motion for remand finding that there was no reasonable basis for the claim against the store manager, and where the removing defendant has proven that jurisdictional amount has been satisfied. This case is a win for defendants that remove cases to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and are faced with plaintiffs that join improper, non-diverse parties for the sole purpose of defeating diversity. 

The facts are as follows--the Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, initiated her action in state court, naming a Virginia corporation as the sole defendant. Later, the Plaintiff amended her complaint, adding the company's store manager and a Florida resident as a defendant. In the operative complaint, the Plaintiff brought separate negligence counts against the two defendants for the injuries that she allegedly sustained from falling in the parking lot at the company's store. The company removed the action to federal court, alleging that complete diversity of citizenship existed and that the amount in controversy exceeded the requisite amount by law. To overcome the fact that both the Plaintiff and the store manager were Florida citizens, which would normally defeat diversity, the company argued that the store manager's citizenship should be disregarded because he was fraudulently joined solely to avoid federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff then moved to remand the case to state court, insisting that the store manager was properly joined and that amount in controversy is less than seventy-five thousand dollars.  

In finding fraudulent joinder, the court first pointed out that Florida courts have held that a corporate officer may be held individually liable for personal injuries caused to third parties provided several factors are present. The necessary elements are: (1) the corporation owes a duty of care to the third party, the breach of which has caused the damage for which recovery is sought; (2) the duty is delegated by the principal or employer to the defendant officer; (3) the defendant officer has breached this duty through personal -- as opposed to technical or vicarious -- fault; and (4) with regard to the personal fault, personal liability cannot be imposed upon the officer simply because of his or her general administrative responsibility for performance of some function of his or her employment. The corporate officer must have a personal duty towards the injured third party, breach of which specifically has caused the party's damages. However, the court found that the Plaintiff had not rebutted the store manager's denial that he personally breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff -- the third element required.

The court also evaluated the amount in controversy requirement in federal court and noted that where the jurisdictional amount is not apparent from the complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was removed. The court evaluated the evidence and found that the defendant had established that the jurisdictional minimum has been met. Therefore, the court found, the proponent's estimate of the claim's value must be accepted unless there is a “legal certainty” that the claim is actually for less than the jurisdictional amount. Because the Plaintiff presented no evidence or argument that such a certainty exists, her assertion that she may not recover the full jurisdictional amount was found "unavailing".

If you are interested in receiving a full copy of this decision, please feel free to write me at miamipandi@comcast.net

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--U.S. Crewmember Required to Arbitrate Claims Applying Norwegian Law

In Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a U.S. citizen, working aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship is required to arbitrate his claims against Royal Caribbean.
Plaintiff, a United States citizen, worked as the lead trumpeter on a passenger Royal Caribbean cruise ship. The ship is a Bahamian flagged vessel with a home port in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Royal Caribbean, the operator of the vessel, is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. After plaintiff became ill while working for Royal Caribbean, he filed suit alleging unseaworthiness, negligence, negligence under the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and seaman’s wages and penalties. Royal Caribbean moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted the motion. This appeal presented an issue of first impression: Whether a seaman’s work in international waters on a cruise ship that calls o…

Maritime Law--Tour Boat Captain Implicated in Tragedy Off Nicaragua

As reported in the Daily Business Review on January 25, 2016, Nicaragua's police, army and navy will investigate the captain of a tourist boat and his assistant for the deaths of 13 Costa Rican passengers killed on January 23rd when the vessel capsized in bad weather. The Reina del Caribe, Spanish for "Caribbean Queen," was carrying 33 people when it went down Saturday amid rain and strong winds as it ferried between the Corn Islands, a popular tourist destination, off Nicaragua's Caribbean coast. The Daily Business Review article can be accessed here=> Daily Business Review article.

The government clarified on the 24th that the boat was carrying 25 Costa Ricans, two Americans, two British citizens, a Brazilian and three Nicaraguans. Previous reports had said there were 32 people on board, including four Americans. All the dead were Costa Ricans.

Nicaragua's naval commander for the southern Caribbean region said the boat's captain was detained because the …

Maritime Law--Lawsuits Filed Over RCCL's "Storm Cruise"

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd ("RCCL") faces lawsuits by passengers accusing the company of negligently endangering their lives by letting Anthem of the Seas sail into a February 7, 2016 storm.  One class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami specifically states that RCCL should be required to pay punitive damages to passengers on its ship for "knowingly sailing directly into" a strong winter storm with 120-mph winds. It is also alleged that people aboard the ship were "subjected to hours of sheer terror as the gigantic cruise ship was battered by hurricane-force winds and more than 30-foot waves."

The vessel reportedly encountered 100 mph winds and 30-foot waves, and RCCL said the storm was more severe than expected. RCCL later turned the ship around, and it returned to New Jersey on February 10. Anthem of the Seas’ port azipod reportedly burnt through “all four clutches” during the storm. RCCL reported four minor injuries among more than 6,000 p…