C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC v. ALM Baton Rouge, LLC, 3:24-cv-00512

CRE (C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC) and Chad Robinson sued ALM Baton Rouge, LLC (ALM) and Amazon.com Services, LLC in Louisiana state court after an on-site employee incident at an Amazon facility ("DLB2") and the later termination of CRE’s DSP contract with Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI).
Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to provide adequate security at DLB2, causing loss of CRE’s contract and millions in profits; they seek damages for lost revenue and reputation.
Amazon.com removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; ALM’s citizenship was not initially adequately pleaded, prompting court orders to cure the defect.
Defendants produced the ALM–Amazon.com Lease showing ALM disclaimed providing security and liability for security breaches; Amazon.com argues ALM is improperly joined and its citizenship may be disregarded.
The magistrate judge concluded Plaintiffs cannot state a plausible claim against ALM for contract-loss damages based on a failure to provide security (Art. 2322 does not cover a lack of security/"ruin" here) and recommended dismissing ALM without prejudice and granting leave to file a Second Amended Notice of Removal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALM is properly joined (improper joinder)	ALM owned/maintained DLB2 and had a non-delegable duty to keep premises safe; jury should decide negligence	ALM is a lessor who disclaimed security duties in the Lease and Plaintiffs allege no facts tying ALM to the alleged harm	ALM was improperly joined; dismissal without prejudice recommended
Whether La. Civ. Code art. 2322 supports Plaintiffs’ claim against ALM	Olsen and Art. 2322 impose owner liability for appurtenant defects; applies here	Art. 2322 targets "ruin" or defective physical components (collapse/explosion), not lack of security	Art. 2322 not applicable to Plaintiffs’ theory; failure to provide security is not "ruin" here
Relevance of Lease indemnity/disclaimer to jurisdiction and liability	Plaintiffs are not parties to the Lease; indemnity is premature and irrelevant to jurisdiction	Lease disclaims landlord security obligations and limits ALM’s liability; supports improper-joinder defense	Court considered the Lease for joinder inquiry and found ALM disclaimed security obligations, supporting dismissal
Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists after ALM’s dismissal	Plaintiffs contend joinder is proper (remand sought)	If ALM is dismissed as improperly joined, complete diversity exists and amount in controversy satisfied	With ALM dismissed, diversity jurisdiction exists; grant leave to file amended notice of removal

Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for improper joinder and two methods to prove it)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So.2d 1285 (La. 1978) (Art. 2322 applied to building and appurtenant part causing explosion)
Posecai v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) (duty to provide security arises when criminal acts are reasonably foreseeable)
Moczygemba v. Danos & Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 561 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1977) (definition/limits of "ruin" under Art. 2322)
Wallon v. General Acc. Ins. Co., 947 F.2d 1488 (5th Cir. 1991) (failure to provide security is not a defect under Art. 2322)
Davis v. Royal–Globe Ins. Cos., 242 So.2d 839 (La. 1970) (Art. 2322 interpretation regarding collapse/defect)
Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 824 (M.D. La. 2012) (describing parameters of "ruin" under Art. 2322)