Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp.

Decision Date21 February 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-2671,78-2671
PartiesMancel E. TEDDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F.M.C. CORPORATION et al., Defendants. Appeal of F.M.C. CORPORATION. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Hackman & Lewis, Randell O. Lewis, Boutte, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer & Pierson, James K. Irvin, M. Truman Woodward, Jr., Frederick R. Bott, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before COLEMAN, FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mancel Tedder, injured while on the job, filed this negligence suit in Louisiana state court. He named as defendants F.M.C. Corporation (F.M.C.), the manufacturer of a crane allegedly involved in the accident, and Charles Thomas, L. Z. Henry, Bobby Hall, and M. L. Aleman, all said to be officers, directors, or employees of Tedder's employer, J. A. Jones Construction.

Tedder is a resident of Louisiana. F.M.C. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Illinois. Thomas and Henry are residents of Mississippi, but Hall and Aleman are residents of Louisiana.

F.M.C. petitioned for removal of the case to federal district court, contending that the joinder of Hall and Aleman was for the fraudulent purpose of defeating federal jurisdiction and that lack of complete diversity could not be raised as a bar to removal. The district court removed the case, denied Tedder's motion to remand to state court, and granted the motion of Thomas, Henry, Hall, and Aleman to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After Tedder failed to comply with the court's order to make his pleadings more definite, the court granted F.M.C.'s unopposed motion for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) or for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and entered a final judgment.

On appeal, Tedder contends that the joinder of two nondiverse defendants was not fraudulent and that the case should have been remanded to state court. The defendants argue that dismissal, rather than remand, was correct under recent amendments to the Louisiana workmen's compensation statute, LSA-R.S. 23:1032; 23:1101 (Supp.1978).

Whether the case was properly removed is determined by reference to the allegations in a plaintiff's state court pleading. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 1939, 305 U.S 534, 537, 59 S.Ct. 347, 349, 83 L.Ed. 334, 338. If there is no arguably reasonable basis for predicting that state law might impose liability on the resident defendants under the facts alleged, then the claim is deemed fraudulent and lack of diversity will not prevent removal. Bobby Jones Garden Apartments v. Suleski, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 172, 176-77; Parks v. New York Times Co., 5 Cir. 1962, 308 F.2d 474, 478; Covington v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 5 Cir. 1958, 251 F.2d 930, 933-34, Cert. denied, 357 U.S. 921, 78 S.Ct. 1362, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365.

Accepting as true every fact alleged in Tedder's state court petition, there is no such reasonable basis for predicting that he could prevail under Louisiana law as it stands today. Before October 1, 1976, an injured employee could sue a third party, including fellow workers, executive officers, and directors of his employer, in addition to collecting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • Little v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 20, 2002
    ...question as "whether there was any `reasonable basis for predicting that the plaintiff could prevail.'" Id. (quoting Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir.1979)). The burden is on Defendants to show joinder was fraudulent, see Jerome-Duncan, 176 F.3d at 907, and that burden is ......
  • American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Flintkote Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 9, 1983
    ...in equally exacting terms. See, e.g., B. Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., supra, 663 F.2d 545 (no possibility of liability); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp. (5th Cir.1979) 590 F.2d 115 (no arguably reasonable basis for liability); Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. (10th Cir.1967) 378 F.2d 879 ......
  • Farias v. Bexar County Bd. of Trustees for Mental Health Mental Retardation Services
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 11, 1991
    ...Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1039, 104 S.Ct. 701, 79 L.Ed.2d 166 (1984); B., Inc., 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.1981); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1979); Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc., 427 F.2d 325 (5th Cir.1970). Until now, the exception has not been applied to a case in whic......
  • Jeff Gaither, Deputy Liquidator of Ky. Health Coop., Inc. v. Beam Partners, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • March 31, 2017
    ...determining under each count whether plaintiffs state a colorable cause of action under state law.") 5. See also Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1979) ("If there is no arguably reasonable basis for predicting that state law might impose liability on the resident defendan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Diversity jurisdiction removal in Florida.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 1, January 2003
    • January 1, 2003
    ...(24) Woods v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 560 F. Supp. 588, 590 (S.D. Fla. 1983). (25) Id. at 591, citing Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979), see also Coker v. Amoco Oil Co., 709 F.2d 1433, 1440-41 (11th Cir. 1983); Droessler v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 64 F. S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT