Bohnenkamp v. Hog Slat, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. C21-4014-LTS,C21-4014-LTS |
| Citation | 549 F.Supp.3d 937 |
| Parties | Roger BOHNENKAMP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOG SLAT, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
David Christen Briese, Crary Huff Ringgenberg Hartnett & Storm PC, Sioux City, IA, Justin Ryan Vondrak, Bauerly and Langel, LeMars, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Angel Anna West, Thomas Clinton Goodhue, Maynard Cooper Gale, Johnston, IA, for Defendant Hog Slat, Inc.
John C. Gray, Heidman Law Firm LLP, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant USA Solutions, LLC.
This case is before me on a motion (Doc. 10) by plaintiffs Roger Bohnenkamp and RCB Honey Haulers, Inc. (RCB), to remand this action to the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant Hog Slat, Inc. (Hog Slat), has filed a resistance (Doc. 13), and plaintiffs have replied (Doc. 15). Defendants USA Solutions, LLC (USA Solutions), and Kathleen Hargens have not responded to plaintiffs’ motion. Oral argument has been requested but is not necessary. See N.D. Iowa L.R. 7(c).
Bohnenkamp is a wean-to-finish hog producer in Iowa. After purchasing a new group of iso-wean pigs, he places them in finishing barns, where they are fed until they weigh as much as 300 pounds. To help control the inevitable mountain of manure produced by pigs whose only tasks are to eat and grow, the finishing barns have slatted concrete floors. The slats allow much of the manure to flow into a large pit below rather than accumulate on the floor. When the pits are full, the manure must be pumped out.
When iso-wean pigs are first placed in the finishing barns, the slatted floors must be covered with mats to provide comfortable bedding and keep them warm. Once the pigs reach an adequate size, the mats are removed or broken down to allow manure to flow through the floor. Because the rubber mats customarily used to cover the slats are large and heavy, the task of repeatedly installing and removing them can be burdensome.
In 2009, Bohnenkamp came across a Hog Slat advertisement for a lightweight, disposable wean-to-finish pig mat produced by USA Solutions under the trade name of "Compost-A-Mat." The advertisement stated that Compost-A-Mats are completely biodegradable and contain no resins or glues. Based on this information, Bohnenkamp believed the Compost-A-Mats to be superior to the cumbersome rubber mats he had been using and began purchasing them from Hog Slat. He asserts that the Hog Slat employees who sold him the mats, including Hargens, repeatedly assured him that the mats worked well and would not need to be removed because they would naturally decompose in the manure pits.
In 2016, Bohnenkamp began noticing that some pieces of the Compost-A-Mats he had used failed to decompose in the manure pits. The pieces began clogging the pits’ agitator pumps, which caused a greater amount of solids to settle at the bottom of the pit. Both these factors made emptying the pits much more difficult and time consuming.
The undecomposed pieces of Compost-A-Mat also caused issues for RCB, an Iowa company hired by Bohnenkamp to pump manure from his hog pits and inject it into his or other farmers’ cropland. RCB's equipment could not adequately shred the undecomposed Compost-A-Mat pieces that had accumulated in the pits, so its pumps and injector lines began to clog, limiting how effectively it could apply manure. RCB has tried to prevent clogging by screening for the undecomposed Compost-A-Mat pieces but has had limited success.
Bohnenkamp ceased using Compost-A-Mats in 2017, but undecomposed pieces of the mats have continued to clog, and limit the effectiveness of, his and RCB's pumping and fertilizing equipment.
On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs commenced an action against Hog Slat and USA Solutions in Iowa state court. The case was removed to this court based on diversity of citizenship – as Hog Slat and USA Solutions are citizens of North Carolina and Minnesota, respectively, and plaintiffs are citizens of Iowa. Hog Slat moved to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Case No. 20-cv-4043, Docs. 1, 4. Soon thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint raising additional claims against Hog Slat and USA Solutions, which Hog Slat again moved to dismiss. Id. , Docs. 12, 20.
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to join Hargens, who is a citizen of Iowa, as a defendant and remand the case to Iowa state court for lack of complete diversity. Id. , Docs. 13, 19. Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney denied plaintiffs’ motion, finding that the timing of the requested joinder, along with plaintiffs’ failure to explain why Hargens had not been joined earlier, supported an inference that plaintiffs sought to join Hargens solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. Id. , Doc. 26. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed all claims against Hog Slat, and filed a stipulation of dismissal of all claims against USA Solutions, before the court could rule on Hog Slat's motion to dismiss. Id. , Docs. 27, 28.
Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County on December 31, 2020, this time naming Hog Slat, USA Solutions and Hargens as defendants. Docs. 1, 3. On March 24, 2021, defendants removed the case to this court based on diversity of citizenship, claiming that Hargens, the only non-diverse defendant, was fraudulently joined for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. Hog Slat again filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Docs. 6, 7. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand to state court, arguing that the court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not completely diverse. Doc. 10. Hog Slat filed a resistance on April 29, 2021, and plaintiffs replied on May 6, 2021. Docs. 13, 15.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants may remove to federal court "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." One such basis for removal is diversity of citizenship among parties to the action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). A case may be removed based on diversity of citizenship when (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, (2) there is complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, meaning that no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and (3) no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case was brought. Id. §§ 1332, 1441(b) ; Hubbard v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. , 799 F.3d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 2015). Complete diversity "must exist both when the state petition is filed and when the petition for removal is filed." Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc. , 634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. , 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) ). If a case is removed based on diversity of citizenship, but complete diversity does not in fact exist, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case and must remand it to state court. See Hubbard , 799 F.3d at 1226–27. Any doubts about the propriety of removal "should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Id. (quoting Knudson , 634 F.3d at 975 ).
Defendants removed this case from state court alleging diversity jurisdiction. They acknowledge that complete diversity is absent on the face of plaintiffs’ complaint because Hargens, like plaintiffs, is a citizen of Iowa. However, they argue that this court may nonetheless exercise diversity jurisdiction because Hargens was fraudulently joined as a defendant for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction.
Under the fraudulent joinder1 exception to the complete diversity rule, a district court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over a removed case lacking complete diversity if the plaintiff filed "frivolous or illegitimate claim[s] against a non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal." In re Prempro Prod. Liab. Litig. , 591 F.3d 613, 620 (8th Cir. 2010) ; see also Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Cockrell , 232 U.S. 146, 152, 34 S.Ct. 278, 58 L.Ed. 544 (1914) (). To show that a non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined, the defendants who removed the case must "prove that the plaintiff's claim[s] against the non-diverse defendant ha[ve] no reasonable basis in law and fact." Hubbard , 799 F.3d at 1227. If the removing defendants are able to do so, the court may disregard the non-diverse defendant's citizenship, dismiss it and retain jurisdiction over the case. See Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC , 699 F.3d 1027, 1031 (8th Cir. 2012), as corrected (Nov. 28, 2012); Com. Sav. Bank v. Com. Fed. Bank , 939 F. Supp. 674, 680 (N.D. Iowa 1996) ; see also Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. , 577 F.3d 752, 763 (7th Cir. 2009) ; In re Briscoe , 448 F.3d 201, 216 (3d Cir. 2006) ; Mayes v. Rapoport , 198 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 1999).
Before considering whether Hargens was fraudulently joined, I must address two preliminary points of contention. First, the parties disagree as to which of plaintiffs’ pleadings – the original state court petition or the amended federal court complaint – I should analyze to determine whether plaintiffs’ claims against Hargens have a reasonable basis in law and fact. Hog Slat argues that I should analyze only the original state court petition while plaintiffs argue that I should analyze the amended complaint. Second, the parties disagree as to whether I may consider plaintiffs’ previous action against Hog Slat and USA Solutions in determining whether Hargens was fraudulently joined in this case. I will address these issues and then turn to the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial