39 F.4th 309
5th Cir.2022Background
- Joanna Guijarro rented a Jeep from Enterprise (EAN Holdings/Enterprise Holdings) in Texas for a 2018 road trip; the vehicle crashed in heavy rain, injuring Joanna and her two children.
- The Guijarros sued Enterprise entities in Texas state court alleging negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and DTPA violations tied to an asserted brake defect.
- Defendants removed to federal court; the district court denied two remand attempts (amount in controversy and later joinder of Texas defendants) and struck an amended complaint adding two Texas defendants as improper joinder.
- Enterprise Holdings was dismissed based on judicial estoppel tied to an earlier agreement that EAN Holdings was the proper defendant.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendant (EAN) because the plaintiffs presented no expert evidence identifying a specific brake defect or excluding other causes; Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount-in-controversy for removal | No specific sum pleaded; thus federal jurisdiction not established | Complaint and alleged serious injuries/damages (medical bills, treble DTPA, fees) make >$75,000 facially apparent | Remand denied; diversity jurisdiction satisfied |
| Joinder of nondiverse defendants (Lithia, Trevino) | Amended complaint adding Texas defendants destroys diversity and requires remand | Amendment was improper, meant to defeat jurisdiction; claims against them implausible | District court did not abuse discretion in denying joinder/remand and striking amendment (Hensgens analysis) |
| Dismissal of Enterprise Holdings | Plaintiffs sought to keep Enterprise Holdings as defendant | Plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss Enterprise Holdings in exchange for stipulation; estoppel bars reneging | Dismissal affirmed as not an abuse of discretion (judicial estoppel) |
| Sufficiency of evidence (expert requirement) | Lay testimony (driver felt brakes not work) sufficient; Armstrong inapplicable to brakes/DTPA/contract claims | Texas law requires competent expert testimony to prove mechanical defect and exclude other causes | Armstrong applies broadly; expert proof required; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (expert testimony required to show vehicle defect and exclude other causes)
- Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 171 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) (burden on defendant to prove amount-in-controversy when state petition silent)
- Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987) (factors to consider before permitting joinder of nondiverse defendants after removal)
- Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2009) (court may vacate prior order that caused loss of diversity)
- Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995) (state-court pleading amount controls if made in good faith)
- Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. 2014) (confirms requirement that experts exclude other plausible causes in defect cases)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2001) (no general duty to discover latent defects; exception when servicer negligently performed necessary repairs and plaintiff relied on them)
- Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (standards for determining improper joinder)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (supplemental jurisdiction allows federal court to hear claims of other plaintiffs once one plaintiff meets amount-in-controversy)