Eureste v. Target Corporation et al
Filing
12
ORDER denying 8 MOTION to Remand, granting 3 MOTION dismiss Deft. Broce, granting 2 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE to Northern District of Texas.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, )
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SERVANDO EURESTE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TARGET CORPORATION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. C-12-61
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Before the Court are three motions: (1) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand” (D.E. 8);
(2) “Subject to Motion to Transfer Venue, Defendant Paul Broce’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss” (D.E. 3); and (3) Defendants’ “Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(A)” (D.E. 2). Plaintiff’s motion (D.E. 8) is DENIED. Defendants’
motions (D.E. 2 and 3) are GRANTED.
I.
Background
On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a negligence and premises liability suit against
Defendants in County Court at Law No. 1, Nueces County, Texas. Plaintiff is a Texas
citizen domiciled in the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern District of Texas. He
sought personal injury damages resulting from a slip and fall that occurred at Target Store
#947 in Dallas, Texas, which is also in the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern District
of Texas.
On February 22, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal based on diversity
jurisdiction. While Defendant Broce is a citizen of Texas, the Target Defendants (Target
1/4
Corporation and Target Stores, Inc. d/b/a Target #947) are Minnesota corporations.
Defendant Broce was an employee of Target, serving as the Store Team Leader.
Defendants allege that he was improperly joined and thus his citizenship should be
disregarded for diversity purposes.
Defendants further allege that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
To support diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the case must be
between parties whose citizenship is diverse and the amount in controversy must exceed
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. A case may be removed if
the non-diverse defendant (Paul Broce) is improperly joined. Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R.
Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 992, 125 S.Ct. 1825 (2005).
To establish improper joinder, a defendant must prove that there is no reasonable
possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against the nondiverse defendant in state court. Id.; Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 2003).
As set forth in section III below, the Court holds that the allegations against
Defendant Broce do not state an independent duty of care apart from that owed by his
employer, Target, and thus there is no reasonable possibility of recovery against him.
E.g., Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. 1996). This Court finds that the
joinder of Defendant Broce is improper and thus does not defeat the diversity of
citizenship required for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
With respect to the amount in controversy, Defendants showed that they provided
Plaintiff with an opportunity to state that the damages sought did not exceed $75,000
2/4
before they removed the case. Plaintiff declined. This Court offered Plaintiff a second
opportunity at a status conference held on March 23, 2012. Again, Plaintiff, by and
through counsel, declined.
After reviewing the Plaintiff’s pleading and the categories of damages facially
apparent from the claims therein, the Court finds that a fair reading demonstrates that the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. Plaintiff’s refusal to make any representation to the contrary shows that his motion
for remand on that basis is disingenuous. The Court finds that the amount in controversy
requirement is met. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED.
III.
Defendant Broce’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In Texas, individual liability
against an employee arises only when the employee owes an independent duty of
reasonable care to the injured party apart from the employer’s duty of care. Leitch v.
Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. 1996); Gipson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008 WL
4844206 at *5 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2008). The Texas Supreme Court has extended the
holding in Leitch to premises liability cases. Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 562 (Tex.
2005). In Gipson, the court found that the Wal-Mart employee did not owe the customer
a duty of reasonable care independent from the duty that Wal-Mart owed her because the
actions she allegedly took were in the course and scope of her employment.
In Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant
Target is liable for the negligence of Paul Broce because he was acting as a managing
3/4
employee of Target where the injury occurred,” “he was acting within the course and
scope of employment,” and “any acts or omissions by him are imputed to Target.”
Because the alleged actions taken by Defendant Broce were in the course and scope of
his employment, Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Broce owes a duty to him
separate and apart from that of the Target Defendants. Therefore, Defendant Broce is not
independently liable for any acts of negligence alleged against him, and his Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IV. Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue
Defendant seeks transfer of the venue of this case to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, stating that the events made the basis of the
lawsuit occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court and that the Plaintiff
resides there. Plaintiff has not filed a response to this Motion and it is thus deemed
unopposed under Local Rule 7.4. Therefore, “Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)” (D.E. 2) is GRANTED.
ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2012.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4/4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
