Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Federal Courts Ignore Improperly Joined Parties Designed
to Destroy Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In C.C. Prine v. BASF Corp., Civ. No. 06-0966, 2006 WL 2294822 (M.D. La. Aug. 7, 2006), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for damages to their sweet potato crops allegedly caused by herbicide manufactured by the defendants. The plaintiffs brought suit in state court, but the defendants removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship federal subject matter jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs improperly joined non-diverse parties to destroy diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Background

The plaintiffs, citizens of Louisiana, brought their action in state court against the defendants stemming from damages to their sweet potato crops allegedly caused by the herbicide Outlook. Id. at *1. The plaintiffs named Michael McKenzie and Lance Cone, citizens of Louisiana, as parties to the lawsuit in addition to the herbicide manufacturer BASF Corp. and distributor Helena Chemical Company. Id. Defendants BASF and Helena Chemical successfully removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sought to remand. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court because the plaintiffs, McKenzie, and Cone were citizens of Louisiana, thus the parties' citizenships were not completely diverse. Id. BASF and Helena argued that the plaintiff had improperly joined non-diverse defendants McKenzie and Cone to destroy diversity of citizenship jurisdiction; therefore, the citizenship of those parties should be ignored for diversity purposes. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In their petition, the plaintiffs alleged that Outlook was manufactured by BASF, sold by Helena, and delivered to end users by employees of Helena under the supervision of McKenzie and Cone. Id. In other words, "McKenzie's and Cone's alleged individual liability stem[ed] solely from their role as supervisors of Helena's employees." Id. Helena and BASF argued the following from Canter v. Koehring, 283 So. 2d 716 (La. 1973):

an employee can be held individually liable for work-related acts committed during the course of his employment only if the following factors are proven: (1) the employer owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the employer delegated the duty to the employee-defendant (3) the employee-defendant breached the duty through personal (as opposed to technical or vicarious) fault; and (4) the duty was not one associated with the employee-defendant's general administrative responsibility for performance of some function of his employment.
Id.

Defendants BASF and Helena argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim against McKenzie or Cone according to the Canter test; therefore, they alleged that McKenzie's and Cone's citizenship should be ignored and the plaintiffs' motion to remand should be denied. Id. After reviewing the evidence presented, the court concluded that the only action taken by McKenzie and Cone was to confirm delivery of the herbicide-a general administrative responsibility associated with their employment. Id. at *3. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiffs had no viable claims against non-diverse parties McKenzie and Cone, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand. Id.

The case was decided on August 7, 2006.