Gamble v. Renaissance Group
2:19-cv-10661
E.D. La.Sep 25, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Cameron Gamble (North Carolina resident) sued several individuals and entities in Louisiana state court alleging he was promised partnership/equity in Renaissance entities after work in Liberia and was later denied partnership rights, records, profits, and employment.
- Defendants include Louisiana residents Charlie Lusco and Jonas Robertson (among others). Gamble pleaded claims under Louisiana partnership law (breach of fiduciary duty), corporations law, LUTPA, and unjust enrichment.
- Lusco removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; Gamble moved to remand invoking the forum-defendant rule and arguing removal consent was defective.
- Lusco argued he was improperly joined so his Louisiana citizenship should be disregarded and contended consents to removal were proper.
- The court performed a Rule 12(b)(6)-style inquiry, found Gamble plausibly alleged at least one viable claim (breach of fiduciary duty/partnership claim) against Lusco and Robertson, concluded they were properly joined, and therefore remanded the case to state court.
- The court dismissed pending federal motions without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the consent-to-remove argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of forum-defendant rule | Forum-defendant rule bars removal because a defendant (Lusco/Robertson) is a Louisiana citizen properly joined and served | Rule doesn't bar removal because Lusco was improperly joined and his Louisiana citizenship should be ignored | Held: Forum-defendant rule applies; remand required because in-state defendants are properly joined |
| Improper joinder standard | Gamble says he stated viable claims against in-state defendants so they are properly joined | Lusco says plaintiff cannot establish any claim against him; therefore he is improperly joined | Held: Lusco failed to show no possibility of recovery; improper-joinder not established |
| Sufficiency of pleadings against in-state defendants | Allegations (agreement to make plaintiff partner, articles listing him, denial of partnership, withholding records, wrongful termination/profits withheld) are sufficient to state at least one plausible claim | Lusco contends allegations lack legal citation/factual detail and fail to state a claim | Held: Pleadings meet Twombly/Iqbal notice-pleading standard and plausibly state a partnership/fiduciary-duty claim |
| Validity of removal consents | Gamble also contends not all defendants properly consented to removal | Lusco says consents were proper | Held: Court did not decide consent issue because remand was required on forum-defendant grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for establishing improper joinder: no reasonable possibility plaintiff can recover against in-state defendant)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for civil complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applications of Twombly pleading principles)
- Gasch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2003) (ambiguities of state law and contested facts resolved for party opposing removal)