Joe Alviar, Jr. v. Macy's Incorporated
854 F.3d 286
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alviar, a Texas resident and Macy’s employee diagnosed with PTSD from military service, alleged discriminatory conduct by his supervisor John Lillard and wrongful termination by Macy’s.
- Alviar sued in Texas state court for disability discrimination against Macy’s and tortious interference with his employment contract against Lillard (a Texas citizen).
- Macy’s removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and argued Lillard was improperly joined to defeat diversity; Alviar moved to remand.
- Lillard moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a tortious-interference claim; the district court denied remand, granted Lillard’s dismissal with prejudice, and entered final judgment under Rule 54(b).
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Lillard was improperly joined (affecting subject-matter jurisdiction) and whether dismissal with prejudice was proper given lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lillard was improperly joined, defeating diversity/removal | Lillard acted for his own personal interests (tortious interference), so he is properly joined and diversity is lacking | No reasonable basis to recover against Lillard because plaintiff failed to plead that Lillard acted solely for his personal interest | Court held Lillard was improperly joined; denial of remand affirmed |
| Sufficiency of pleading tortious interference by corporate agent | Alleging violation of Macy’s internal anti-discrimination policy shows Lillard acted contrary to Macy’s interests and solely for personal motives | Texas law requires allegations that the agent acted solely in his own interest and that the corporation complained or otherwise shows the agent acted against corporate interests | Court held complaint failed to plead that Lillard acted solely for personal interest; no reasonable basis to predict recovery against him |
| Whether a violation of corporate policy alone permits inferring agent acted contrary to corporation | Policy violation suffices to infer corporate disapproval and personal-motive inference (per plaintiff citing district precedent) | Such an inference conflicts with Texas Supreme Court precedent; corporation may benefit or tolerate policy violations; plaintiff must plead personal benefit and corporate complaint | Court rejected plaintiff’s argument and refused to adopt the district-court rule allowing automatic inference from policy violation |
| Effect of improper joinder on dismissal posture (with prejudice vs without) | N/A (plaintiff challenged dismissal with prejudice) | District court dismissed claim with prejudice after finding improper joinder | Court held when a nondiverse party is improperly joined, dismissal must be without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; remanded to vacate dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.) (diversity requires complete separation of citizenship)
- Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. en banc) (improper-joinder standard; Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis)
- Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d 392 (5th Cir.) (elements of tortious interference and corporate-agent standard)
- Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.) (corporate-agent must act solely for personal interest to support tortious interference)
- ACS Inv’rs Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.) (same principle regarding agent acting contrary to corporate interests)
- Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Tex. Oil Co., 958 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.) (requires a corporate "complaint" about agent to infer action contrary to corporation)
- Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.) (evidence of personal benefit required for corporate-agent liability)
- Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (dismissal of improperly joined nondiverse party must be without prejudice)
- Davidson v. Ga-Pac., L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for improper-joinder/remand rulings)
- Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir.) (removal jurisdiction determined from state-court petition at time of removal)