Faulk v. Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A.
849 F. Supp. 2d 1327
M.D. Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiff Billy Faulk filed suit in Alabama state court on March 16, 2011 against Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Bobby Daffin, and others; Husqvarna, as Electrolux's successor, was substituted in the Second Amended Complaint.
- Plaintiffs allege negligence, wantonness, and a claim under AEMLD arising from an Electrolux-made lawn mower incident; Daffin allegedly removed a rear flap prior to purchase.
- Discovery indicates the rear flap did not contribute to the accident or injuries; an expert testified the flap’s presence or absence would not have changed the outcome.
- By December 28, 2011, Husqvarna had removed the case to federal court, noting Faulk’s Alabama citizenship and Husqvarna’s citizenship as Delaware and North Carolina; Daffin’s Alabama citizenship was alleged but he was purportedly fraudulently joined.
- Faulk filed a motion to remand on January 24, 2012, contending procedural defects and lack of substantive federal jurisdiction.
- The court denied remand, holding that Daffin was fraudulently joined and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daffin’s non-diverse status was fraudulently joined | Faulk argues non-diverse Daffin should not bar remand; claims against Daffin may be viable. | Husqvarna asserts Daffin is fraudulently joined and should be disregarded for diversity. | Daffin is fraudulently joined; remand denied; Daffin’s claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Faulk contends the damages are unspecified and may be less than $75,000. | Husqvarna shows the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 based on evidence and settlement demands. | Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Whether removal was properly supported given the lack of service on a non-diverse party | Faulk contends procedural defects and lack of timely service undermine removal. | Husqvarna argues later-discovered removability permits removal without strict § 1446 compliance. | Removal proper; procedural requirements satisfied under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Insinga v. LaBella, 845 F.2d 249 (11th Cir. 1988) (voluntary abandonment may remove non-diverse parties for purposes of diversity)
- S. Pac. Co. v. Haight, 126 F.2d 900 (9th Cir. 1942) (voluntary abandonment can permit removal)
- Ramirez v. Michelin N.A., Inc., 2007 WL 2126635 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (considerations for abandonment and joinder analyses)
- Davis v. Am. Med. Sec., Inc., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (good faith in pursuing claims affects remand/joinder outcomes)
- Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010) (removal jurisdiction and interpretation of jurisdictional thresholds)
- Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 1994) (removal statutes construed narrowly; uncertainties resolved in favor of remand)
- Roe v. Michelin N.A., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of extrapolations from removal evidence in amount in controversy)
- Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) (burden to prove jurisdictional amount by preponderance where damages are unspecified)
- Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 1998) (caution on determining jurisdiction when damages are unspecified)