Knudson v. Systems Painters, Inc.
634 F.3d 968
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Knudson, a Missouri citizen, alleges lung injuries from paint particulate while working on Walmart HVAC installations.
- Long Refrig. (Missouri) supervised Knudson; Systems Painters painted interiors at the sites; Systems Painters is a Texas citizen.
- Knudson and Long are Missouri citizens; Systems Painters is a Texas citizen, creating potential diversity issues.
- Missouri workers’ compensation immunity ordinarily bars co-employee negligence, but an exception covers affirmative acts outside the safe-workplace duty.
- Missouri state court dismissed Long as immune; Systems Painters removed to federal court, then district court denied remand, certifying the order for interlocutory appeal; Knudson appeals the denial of remand.
- Court reverses and remands to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal under §1446(b) | Knudson argues removal was untimely because the complaint did not specify damages. | Systems Painters argues removal timely based on later records showing amount in controversy. | Removal timely; clock not triggered by implicit damages in complaint. |
| Voluntary-dismissal exception to time-of-filing | Knudson argues dismissal of Long should trigger Powers voluntary-dismissal exception. | Systems Painters contends dismissal was voluntary. | No voluntary-dismissal effect; exception not satisfied. |
| Appropriate standard for fraudulent joinder | Knudson asserts Filla standard governs fraudulent joinder analysis. | Systems Painters urges Simpson/R12(b)(6) approach. | Filla standard applies; Simpson inapplicable to this posture. |
| Whether Knudson fraudulently joined Long | There is a reasonable basis under Missouri law that Long’s affirmative acts caused injury. | Long’s immunity and lack of direct causation negate a viable claim. | Knudson did not fraudulently join Long; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Willis, 228 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2000) (removal clock not triggered unless explicit amount in controversy stated)
- Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 624 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2010) (supports that removal clock starts when due explicit amount is stated)
- Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 169 U.S. 92 (1898) (voluntary-dismissal exception to time-of-filing rule)
- Insinga v. LaBella, 845 F.2d 251 (11th Cir. 1988) (per se rule equating lack of jurisdiction dismissal with fraudulent joinder rejected here)
- Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard: no reasonable basis in fact or law for non-diverse party; supports fraudulent-joinder analysis)
- Simpson v. Thomure, 484 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2007) (disapproved for this posture; not controlling where no final judgment exists)
- Junk v. Terminix Int’l Co., 628 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses jurisdictional remand standards post-Simpson)
- McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. 2009) (Missouri workers’ compensation immunity clarified; prospective rule)
- Groh v. Kohler, 148 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmative act by supervisor creating dangerous condition)
- Burns v. Smith, 214 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. 2007) (supervisor liable for directing dangerous activity)