Alford v. Dyke
3:21-cv-00580
W.D. La.May 10, 2021Background
- On Oct. 30, 2020, Winston Chance Alford died in a head-on collision with an 18‑wheel tractor‑trailer on LA Hwy 33; plaintiffs allege the truck was speeding and DOTD right‑of‑way encroachments obstructed view.
- Plaintiff Sarah Alford (individually and on behalf of minors) sued the truck driver, carrier/owners/insurer, and the State of Louisiana through DOTD in Union Parish state court for negligence and wrongful death.
- Several private defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and argued DOTD was improperly joined to defeat diversity.
- DOTD moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity) and for insufficient service; plaintiffs moved to remand and sought fees.
- Competing reconstructionist affidavits produced factual disputes about right‑of‑way encroachments and whether those encroachments were a cause‑in‑fact of the crash.
- Magistrate Judge McClusky recommended denying DOTD’s dismissal, granting remand for lack of diversity (DOTD not improperly joined), and denying plaintiffs’ request for removal fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOTD was improperly joined so as to permit diversity removal | Alford: DOTD waived immunity in state court and DOTD’s alleged right‑of‑way encroachments plausibly caused the crash | Defs: DOTD is diversity‑destroying state actor and plaintiffs have no reasonable possibility of recovery against it | Held: DOTD not improperly joined; factual disputes exist and remand required (lack of diversity) |
| Whether DOTD’s alleged encroachments were cause‑in‑fact | Alford: encroachments obstructed view and could have allowed Alford to avoid collision | Defs: crash caused solely by vehicle movements/drugs; experts found no visual obstructions | Held: disputed expert opinions create reasonable possibility of recovery against DOTD; cannot be resolved for removal |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees/costs under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) | Alford: removal was improper and defendants colluded; request > $17,000 (also sought $3,375 from DOTD) | Defs: removal was objectively reasonable given competing evidence and diversity asserted | Held: Fees denied—removal had objectively reasonable basis supported by expert evidence |
| DOTD’s motion to dismiss for sovereign immunity and insufficient service | DOTD: entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; plaintiffs failed to serve DOTD properly under state law | Alford: State waived tort immunity in state court; service can be perfected | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction to decide Eleventh Amendment issue after remand determination; even if service defective, remedy is to quash and allow re‑service—dismissal denied and time to serve extended |
Key Cases Cited
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir.) (removal burden and strict construction)
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.) (federal jurisdiction presumed absent)
- Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir.) (improper joinder standards and summary inquiry)
- Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 841 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir.) (requirement to allege citizenship distinctly)
- McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.) (improper‑joinder burden and pleading standards)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (Sup. Ct.) (attorney’s fees under §1447(c) only when removal lacked objectively reasonable basis)
- B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.) (resolve disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor for jurisdictional inquiry)
- Graves v. Page, 703 So.2d 566 (La.) (DOTD duty to maintain safe shoulders/right‑of‑way)
- Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD, 747 So.2d 489 (La.) (scope of DOTD duty regarding right‑of‑way obstructions)
- Cormier v. Comeaux, 748 So.2d 1123 (La.) (DOTD not guarantor but may be liable if custody, defect, notice, and causation shown)