Smythe v. Die Case Machinery, LLC
1:20-cv-00012
M.D. Tenn.Jun 2, 2020Background
- On June 29, 2018 plaintiff Smythe was sprayed with molten aluminum while working on a die-casting machine at Walker Die Casting, Inc.
- Smythe sued Walker (a Tennessee corporation) in state court and later added Yizumi‑HPM (Ohio); Walker was the non‑diverse defendant at issue.
- The state court granted Walker summary judgment on December 4, 2019, holding Smythe’s claims against Walker barred by the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision.
- Smythe later amended to add Die Cast Machinery, LLC (Illinois); Die Cast removed the case to federal court and Smythe moved to remand.
- Removal was contested under the voluntary/involuntary rule: removal after an involuntary dismissal of a non‑diverse defendant is barred unless the fraudulent‑joinder exception applies.
- The district court held Smythe did not state a colorable claim against Walker under Tennessee law (Valencia), so Walker was fraudulently joined, diversity jurisdiction exists, and remand was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability after Walker's involuntary dismissal | Dismissal of Walker does not permit removal; case should be remanded | Removal can be proper if the non‑diverse defendant was fraudulently joined | Court: involuntary dismissal prevents removal unless fraudulent joinder applies (so exception must be tested) |
| Fraudulent joinder — whether Smythe had a colorable claim against Walker under Tenn. law | Smythe argued Walker's conduct was "substantially certain" to cause injury and thus fits the intentional‑tort exception to exclusivity | Die Cast argued Valencia forecloses treating "substantially certain"/recklessness as "actual intent to injure"; thus no colorable claim | Court: Under Valencia, Smythe's allegations of recklessness/substantial certainty do not state a colorable intentional‑tort claim; Walker was fraudulently joined |
| Remand motion | Smythe: federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction; remand required | Die Cast: removal proper because Walker is fraudulently joined and diversity exists | Court: remand denied; diversity jurisdiction exists and case remains in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (establishes voluntary/involuntary rule on removability)
- Coyne v. American Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. rule on fraudulent joinder burden and standard)
- Alexander v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 13 F.3d 940 (describes "colorable claim"/reasonable‑basis test for fraudulent joinder)
- Jackson v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 57 F. Supp. 3d 863 (applies fraudulent‑joinder standard in this district)
- Valencia v. Freeland & Lemm Constr. Co., 108 S.W.3d 239 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. holding that exclusivity exception requires "actual intent to injure")
- King v. Ross Coal Co., 684 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. case cited for intentional‑tort exclusivity analysis)