Kizer v. Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC
1:17-cv-01214
W.D. Tenn.Jan 10, 2018Background
- Plaintiff (temporary worker employed by Express Employment) alleged he suffered an amputation while operating a fish-processing machine at Pinnacle Foods’ Jackson, Tennessee plant and sued Pinnacle Foods Group LLC in state court for negligence and an intentional tort.
- Defendant removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; parties agreed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 but Plaintiff contended Pinnacle Foods was a Tennessee citizen (destroying diversity) because its plant and events were in Tennessee.
- Defendant submitted declarations showing Pinnacle Foods Group LLC is an LLC whose ultimate corporate parent, Pinnacle Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business (nerve center) in Parsippany, New Jersey.
- Plaintiff moved to remand and, if remand was denied, sought leave to amend his complaint; Plaintiff failed to comply with local rules (no certificate of consultation, no proposed amended complaint, no supporting brief).
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Pinnacle was a statutory/co-employer entitled to Tennessee workers’ compensation exclusivity, barring common-law tort claims unless Plaintiff alleged the employer actually intended to injure him.
- The court denied remand, denied leave to amend, granted dismissal with prejudice because Plaintiff’s pleaded facts did not allege actual intent to injure and his claims were barred by the exclusivity provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has diversity jurisdiction / whether case should be remanded | Pinnacle is a Tennessee citizen because its Jackson plant is its principal place of business and events occurred in Tennessee | Pinnacle’s ultimate parent is incorporated in Delaware and has its "nerve center" (principal place of business) in Parsippany, New Jersey; use Hertz nerve-center test | Denied remand; complete diversity exists (Delaware and New Jersey citizenship for defendant) |
| Motion for leave to amend complaint under Rule 15 | Requests leave to amend if remand denied; generally seeks to amend "as justice so requires" | Opposes (procedural defects and merits) | Denied for failure to comply with local rules and for not attaching proposed amended complaint or stating proposed changes |
| Whether Pinnacle is immune from tort suit under Tennessee workers’ compensation exclusivity for temporary-worker injury | Plaintiff alleges inadequate training, supervision, and violations of safety rules leading to injury | As statutory/co-employer under Tennessee law, Pinnacle is subject to workers’ compensation and exclusivity bars tort claims | Dismissed negligence claim: exclusivity applies; Pinnacle is co-employer and entitled to exclusive-remedy defense |
| Whether Plaintiff pleaded an intentional tort exception (actual intent to injure) to overcome exclusivity | Plaintiff alleges intentional tort and fraud by nondisclosure of dangerous condition; cites willful misconduct and prior TOSHA citations | Alleged facts show negligence or aggravated negligence, not employer’s actual intent to injure | Dismissed intentional tort claim: complaint fails to plead employer’s actual intent to injure (Valencia standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2000) (removal statutes construed narrowly)
- Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 1999) (doubts about removal resolved in favor of remand)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 599 U.S. 77 (2010) (corporation’s principal place of business determined by the nerve-center test)
- Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, 585 F.3d 1003 (6th Cir. 2009) (LLC takes citizenship of each member)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (complete diversity requirement)
- Valencia v. Freeland and Lemm Constr. Co., 108 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. 2003) (to avoid workers’ compensation exclusivity, employee must plead employer’s actual intent to injure)