Reported / Citable
Background
TCS Consulting and Michael Depew sued RelaDyne, Sun Coast Resources, and four individual defendants in Texas state court over allegedly unpaid investigatory and accident-reconstruction services. TCS alleged that it agreed in May 2024 to provide services to RelaDyne and Sun Coast, completed the agreed work, submitted an invoice, and was not fully paid despite repeated requests.
The plaintiffs asserted contract and quasi-contract claims, along with tortious interference, fraud, malice, Texas Theft Liability Act, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. RelaDyne and Sun Coast removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the Texas-citizen individual defendants had been improperly joined. The plaintiffs moved to remand.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand and dismissed the individual defendants without prejudice. Although the plaintiffs and individual defendants were all Texas citizens, the court held that the individual defendants were improperly joined because the petition did not plausibly state an actionable claim against any of them.
The contractual theories did not support individual liability for agents acting for disclosed principals, and the plaintiffs did not pursue those theories in their remand motion. Their tortious-interference allegations did not identify a specific lost contract or business relationship. The theft claim did not allege facts supporting an intent to avoid payment, including compliance with the statutory written-notice requirements necessary for a presumption of intent. The malice claim was conclusory. The fraud and DTPA claims also failed Rule 9(b) because the petition did not specify who made a false statement, what was said, or when it occurred.
Key Takeaways
- A removing defendant can establish diversity by showing there is no reasonable basis to recover against a nondiverse defendant.
- General allegations of nonpayment do not adequately plead Texas theft-of-services liability.
- Fraud-based DTPA claims must identify the alleged deception with particularity under Rule 9(b).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that plaintiffs cannot preserve a state forum merely by naming in-state employees or representatives without pleading viable, fact-specific claims against them. In removal disputes, federal pleading standards govern whether alleged claims against those defendants create a reasonable possibility of recovery.
For Texas commercial disputes arising from alleged nonpayment, the ruling also distinguishes an ordinary payment dispute from tort and theft claims requiring particularized allegations of wrongful intent or deception.