12 F.4th 511
5th Cir.2021Background
- Hicks worked ~5 years at Martinrea’s Tupelo plant and was fired in August 2018 after alleged quality violations; termination occurred two days before a coworker’s scheduled workers’ compensation deposition.
- Hicks alleges Clark (HR manager) terminated her to prevent her testimony and sued in Lee County, Mississippi for malicious interference with employment (against Clark) and witness tampering (against Clark and Martinrea).
- Defendants removed to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction; Martinrea is diverse but Clark is a Mississippi resident. Defendants argued Clark was improperly joined to defeat diversity.
- The district court found Clark improperly joined, sustained removal, dismissed Clark, and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the improper-joinder ruling de novo and examined whether the district court relied improperly on merits evidence rather than a Rule 12(b)(6)-style inquiry or only discrete undisputed facts.
- The Fifth Circuit held Clark was not improperly joined, reversed the district court, and remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark was improperly joined, barring diversity | Hicks: Complaint plausibly pleads malicious interference (fired to prevent testimony); joinder proper | Defs: Evidence shows no possibility of recovery against Clark (no bad faith/motive), so joinder improper | Clark not improperly joined; complaint survives 12(b)(6)-type inquiry; removal improper |
| Whether the district court may resolve factual disputes from merits evidence to find improper joinder | Hicks: District court erred by resolving merits and weighing evidence beyond discrete undisputed facts | Defs: Discovery evidence negates any possibility of liability, justifying joinder finding | Court: District court erred; defendants relied on merits evidence and not discrete, undisputed facts needed to show improper joinder |
| Proper standard for testing improper joinder | Hicks: Apply Rule 12(b)(6)-type plausibility review; summary inquiry only for discrete undisputed facts | Defs: Point to discovery showing lack of plausible claim | Court: Follow Smallwood—use Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis; only in narrow cases may court pierce pleadings for discrete undisputed facts |
| Whether case should remain in federal court after dismissal of Clark | Hicks: Lack of complete diversity requires remand to state court | Defs: Dismissal of Clark creates diversity jurisdiction | Court: Because Clark was properly joined, diversity jurisdiction lacking; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (standard for improper joinder and limits on piercing pleadings)
- Cumpian v. Alcoa World Alumina, L.L.C., 910 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of improper-joinder determinations)
- Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing summary-judgment and improper-joinder analyses)
- Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard discussion)
- Eastus v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 F.3d 100 (5th Cir. 1996) (removal statutes construed narrowly; remand favored)
- Levens v. Campbell, 733 So. 2d 753 (Miss. 1999) (elements for tortious/malicious interference under Mississippi law)
- Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247 (Miss. 1985) (privilege for employee acting within scope of authority and need to show bad faith to overcome privilege)
- Allen v. Walmart Stores, L.L.C., 907 F.3d 170 (5th Cir. 2018) (example where legal barrier to recovery showed improper joinder)