Sanchez v. Shintech Louisiana, LLC, 3:12-cv-00370

Background

Sánchez filed a state-law damages petition arising from the death of her husband Tory Sánchez during work at Shintech Louisiana’s facility, while employed by Performance Contractors.
Shintech removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, contending several defendants were improperly joined and non-diverse were ignored for purposes of citizenship.
Plaintiff alleged injuries from nitrogen-filled Vessel 201, where Sánchez entered and another employee, Rivet, attempted rescue and died; multiple defendants were named, including Performance Contractors, Rivet, Scaffolding Rental, Daybreak Insulation, United Access, and John Doe entities.
Shintech argued that Performance Contractors, Rivet, Scaffolding Rental, and Daybreak Insulation were non-diverse and improperly joined; plaintiff contended there is a viable claim against them and jurisdiction should be remanded.
Magistrate Judge recommended denial of remand, finding improper joinder of Performance Contractors, Rivet, and Scaffolding Rental, thereby establishing complete diversity among remaining properly diverse defendants.
The court analyzed improper-joinder standards and Louisiana law, including LWCA immunity, Canter v. Koehring Co. for officer liability, and Article 2315 negligence theory.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does improper joinder destroy diversity?	Sánchez asserts viable claims against non-diverse defendants, preventing improper-joinder finding.	Shintech proves no possibility of recovery against non-diverse defendants; improper joinder should be found.	Yes; improper joinder shown for Performance Contractors, Rivet, and Scaffolding Rental; diversity remains.
Are Performance Contractors and Rivet immune under LWCA or liable for intentional torts?	LWCA immunity does not bar potential intentional tort claim; there is a factual basis for liability.	LWCA immunity applies; plaintiff failed to show intentional acts or personal duty.	No viable intentional-tort claim established; immunity/preclusive considerations defeat recovery.
Can Rivet bear personal liability under Canter for Canter-type duties?	Rivet had personal knowledge and duty to warn; Canter supports personal liability.	No facts show Rivet had a personal duty or knowledge; liability cannot attach.	Rivet improperly joined; no reasonable basis to predict personal Canter liability.
Does Scaffolding Rental owe a duty under Article 2315?	Ladder left unsecured created duty to restrict access in operational phase.	No knowledge of nitrogen or need for restrictions; no actionable duty shown.	Scaffolding Rental improperly joined; no duty established under Article 2315.
Should John Does One–Three be considered for diversity purposes?	John Doe defendants affect citizenship and hence diversity.	John Does are disregarded as fictitious; not considered for diversity.	John Does disregarded; complete diversity exists among remaining defendants.

Key Cases Cited

Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2002) (improper joinder burden; focus on joinder, not merits)
Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (test for improper joinder; summary-judgment-like inquiry possible)
Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2003) (improper-joinder analysis; predict lack of recovery against in-state defendant)
McDonal v. Abbott Laboratories, 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2005) (improper-joinder framework; uses Rule 12(b)(6)-type approach)
Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 893 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1990) (controverts limits on removal analysis; determine possibility of recovery)
Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (intentional acts narrowly construed under LWCA)
Swope v. Columbian Chemicals Co., 281 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2002) (intentional act standard under LWCA; substantial certainty)
Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981) (standard for intentional acts under LWCA)
DelaHoussaye v. Morton International, Inc., 300 F. App’x 257 (5th Cir. 2008) (non-wanton negligence standards; Canter context)
Micele v. CPC of La., Inc., 709 So.2d 1065 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1998) (relevance to safety and negligence analysis)