Claim plausibly alleged vs. non-diverse defendant

Where defendants sued for their alleged responsibility for a motor vehicle accident argued that one company was improperly named as a defendant, but the record showed a potential basis for liability against that company, its presence destroyed diversity jurisdiction and required remand to state court.

Background

The plaintiff asserts a state-law tort claim for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a tractor-trailer driver. The plaintiff sues four defendants: Khamidillo Abdumuxtorov, the alleged tractor-trailer driver and a citizen of North Carolina; Asirdin Bozorov, the alleged owner of the tractor-trailer, whose citizenship is unclear from the complaint but whose address is in Illinois; Global Transport LLC, a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business in Harrisonburg; and Global Transportation, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company with its principal place of business in Colorado.

The plaintiff alleges that, at the time of the accident, Abdumuxtorov was an employee or agent or apparent agent of Global Transportation, Global Transport “and/or” Bozorov and was acting within the scope of his employment “and/or” agency.

After the plaintiff filed this case in the circuit court, it was timely removed to this court based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. The plaintiff has moved to remand the case.

Analysis

The dispute centers on whether there is no possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against Global Transport, the alleged home-state defendant.

It is not pellucid as to what facts a district court may consider when fraudulent joinder is asserted. The principle that the court should not consider documents beyond the pleadings when the plaintiff names the alleged non-diverse defendant in the initial complaint might result in remand in this case since the plaintiff alleges that Abdumuxtorov was acting as an employee or agent or apparent agent of Global Transport LLC at the time of the accident. If this fact is proven, there is a possibility that Global Transport will be found liable under Virginia law.

I recognize that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the employment relationship likely do not satisfy the federal pleading standard, in that the plaintiff does not allege that Global Transport — or any of the other named defendants, for that matter — plausibly exercised control over Abdumuxtorov’s conduct or acted in a way that establishes an employment relationship beyond speculation. However, I need not decide the motion to remand on this ground, as the standard for fraudulent joinder is “even more favorable to the plaintiff than the standard for ruling on a motion to dismiss under [even the old possibility, pre-plausibility standard of] Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” I cannot say that there is no possibility the plaintiff will prevail against the home-state defendant Global Transport in state court.

Furthermore, I need not actually resolve whether a review of other documents beyond the pleadings is appropriate because even taking a hard look at the entire record, the removing defendants cannot meet the burden to establish fraudulent joinder. The only evidence in the record is the police crash report, which lists the carrier as “Global Transport LLC.” While I am sympathetic to the argument that the listed DOT number and Colorado address may indicate that the listed reference to the Virginia LLC is a misnomer or that the listed name is merely an abbreviation for the Colorado company, this evidence indicates that there is a “[a] glimmer of hope for the plaintiff,” even if it is “only a slight possibility of a right to relief.”

Plaintiff’s motion to remand granted.

Hill v. Abdumuxtorov, Case No. 1:22-cv-000004, May 26, 2022. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones). VLW 022-3-223. 11 pp.