Reported / Citable
Background
John Willis alleged that he was injured while sandblasting at BASF Corporation’s chemical facility near Freeport, Texas. He alleged that he worked under the direction of Zachry Holdings, Inc., was supervised by Zachry and BASF employees, and was told to work from a 14-foot ladder. According to the complaint, an untied sandblaster hose struck him while he was on the ladder.
Willis, a Texas citizen, sued BASF and Zachry for negligence and gross negligence in Texas state court. BASF removed the case on diversity grounds, asserting that Zachry—whose principal place of business is in Texas—had been improperly joined. Willis moved to remand.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal denied remand, concluding that BASF met its heavy burden to establish Zachry’s improper joinder. BASF submitted incident and witness evidence showing no Zachry involvement in the accident, and Zachry submitted an affidavit stating that its employees were not involved.
The record also showed that Zachry was a parent holding company that did not conduct operations or own property in Texas. Although discovery might later reveal involvement by Zachry or a related entity, the existing record did not provide a reasonable basis to predict Zachry’s liability. The court dismissed Zachry, denied its pending dismissal motion as moot, and retained the case in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant may defeat remand by showing the nondiverse defendant was improperly joined.
- The court may look beyond the pleadings where discrete evidence bears on whether the nondiverse defendant could be liable.
- Possible future discovery is insufficient where the present record negates a reasonable basis for liability.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary showing that can support improper joinder in a workplace-injury removal dispute. A plaintiff’s general allegation that an in-state entity directed or supervised work may not preserve state-court venue when contemporaneous reports, witness statements, and affidavit testimony show the named entity was not involved.
For removal practitioners, the ruling underscores the value of targeted evidence addressing the nondiverse defendant’s role, operations, property, and personnel at the incident site.