Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Loc Nguyen alleged that a shelving unit fell on him at a Walmart store in Texas on August 20, 2024. He sued Walmart Inc., which owned the premises, and Crossmark, Inc., which allegedly performed contracted work at the location.
Walmart removed the case from Texas state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Although Nguyen and Crossmark were both Texas citizens for diversity purposes, Walmart argued that Crossmark had been improperly joined to defeat federal jurisdiction. Nguyen moved to remand the case.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Nguyen’s motion to remand. Applying a federal Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis, it held that Nguyen had no reasonable possibility of recovering against Crossmark because his petition did not plead facts plausibly showing that Crossmark controlled, or had a right to control, the premises or shelving.
The allegation that Crossmark controlled the shelving was merely conclusory, the court found. The petition did not explain how Crossmark obtained control, what work it performed for Walmart, or why it owed Nguyen premises-liability duties. Because Crossmark was improperly joined, the court disregarded its Texas citizenship, retained diversity jurisdiction over the remaining parties, and dismissed the claims against Crossmark without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A nondiverse defendant’s citizenship may be disregarded when the removing party proves improper joinder.
- A premises-liability claim against a contractor must include facts plausibly showing that the contractor assumed control of the premises or had a right to control them.
- Repeating substantially identical allegations against multiple defendants without explaining each defendant’s involvement may be insufficient under the federal pleading standard.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how conclusory allegations against a nondiverse contractor can fail to secure remand. Plaintiffs alleging premises liability against a party other than the property owner must plead concrete facts connecting that party to control of the dangerous condition or premises.
For removing defendants, the ruling also shows that improper joinder can preserve diversity jurisdiction when the state-court petition does not plausibly state a claim against the only nondiverse defendant.