Randy Roberts v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.
874 F.3d 953
6th Cir.2017Background
- Randy Roberts, a Tennessee citizen, filed a class action in Tennessee state court on behalf of Tennessee citizens alleging Mars Petcare US conspired to keep prescription pet food prices high in violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act.
- Mars Petcare US is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business (headquarters) in Tennessee.
- Mars removed the suit to federal court under CAFA, asserting minimal diversity because it is a citizen of Delaware; Roberts moved to remand, arguing Mars’s Tennessee citizenship defeats CAFA’s minimal-diversity requirement.
- The district court denied remand; Roberts obtained permission to appeal the denial of remand to the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit considered whether CAFA’s phrase “a citizen of a State different from any defendant” treats corporate citizenship as plural (all of a corporation’s citizenships) or as an alternative (only the citizenship the defendant invokes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA’s minimal-diversity clause counts all of a corporate defendant’s citizenships or only the one the defendant asserts | Roberts: a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its principal place of business, so Mars’s Tennessee citizenship defeats CAFA minimal diversity | Mars: CAFA requires only that a plaintiff be a citizen of a State different from any defendant; Mars may rely on its Delaware citizenship and ignore its Tennessee citizenship | All of a corporation’s citizenships count; Mars’s Tennessee citizenship prevents CAFA minimal diversity, so removal was improper |
| Whether the complaint’s class definition creates diversity by including non-Tennessee citizens | Roberts: complaint, read as whole, limits the class to Tennessee citizens so CAFA minimal diversity is not satisfied | Mars: class definition could include non-Tennessee purchasers; Roberts alleged only residency not citizenship | Complaint, read as whole, restricts the putative class to Tennessee citizens; Mars fails to show minimal diversity |
| Whether Mars may rely on misjoinder or nonjoinder of the actual manufacturer (Royal Canin) to create jurisdiction | Roberts: plaintiff chooses defendants; merits/joinder issues are not for removal analysis | Mars: the wrong Mars subsidiary was sued; the proper defendant (Royal Canin) would create diversity | Plaintiff is master of the complaint; merits/joinder issues belong to the state court; improper to treat that as a basis for removal |
| Whether fraudulent joinder or Rule 19 joinder doctrines allow federal jurisdiction despite Mars’s Tennessee citizenship | Roberts: no fraudulent joinder; claim against Mars is colorable | Mars: could argue fraudulent joinder or seek joinder of diverse parties | No evidence of fraudulent joinder; Rule 19 cannot be used to create jurisdiction at time of removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (establishing complete-diversity rule under traditional diversity jurisdiction)
- Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (defining principal place of business for corporate citizenship)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (discussing multiple citizenship and Article III limits)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (plaintiff is master of the complaint)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (canon against inferring large changes to law from ambiguous text)
- Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, 230 F.3d 868 (removal burden on defendant)
- Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628 (corporate citizenship includes both incorporation and principal place of business)
- Life of the South Insurance Co. v. Carzell, 851 F.3d 1341 (holding CAFA incorporates dual corporate citizenship)
- Johnson v. Advance Am., 549 F.3d 932 (same)
- Coyne v. American Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488 (standard for fraudulent joinder)