Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40993

M AR LA M EL I SSA M EN EN D EZ; AD EL FA M AN CI LLA S M EN EN D EZ; G RI SEL L M EN EN D EZ M AN CI LLA S; ALI CI A B EA TR I Z M AN CI LLA S; M A R L E N E M E N E N D E Z M A N C IL L A S ; A N AT E R E S AM A N C IL L A S , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. W AL

- M ART S TORE S , I NC. ; W AL

- M ART S TORE S EAS T, L P; W AL

- M ART RE AL T Y ; W AL T ON C ONS T RUC T I ON C OMPA NY , I NC. ; W AL T ON CONST RUCTI ON COM PA NY, L LC ; CAR TE R & BURGES S , I NC. ; J ACOBS ENG I NEE RI NG G RO UP , I NC; J AC OB S E NGI NEE RI NG, I NC. ; HANS ENRI CE , I NC. ; NE S R ENT AL S HOL DI NG, I NC. ; NE S E QUI P M ENT SERVI CES COR PORA TI ON ; NE S EQU I PM EN T REN TAL, LP; J LG IN D U S T R IE S , IN C ., D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- c v- 00348

B ef ore S T E W A R T , D E N N IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 1, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

The plaintiffs also assert strictliabilityan d n egligencecl aims again st th e 1 manufacturer and owner of th e J LG lift. Bec ause the clai ms again st th e individual defendants othe r th a n C art e r & B ur ge s s ar e n o t r e l ev a nt t o th e i s s u e s r ai s e d i n thi s a p p e al , wedo not di stin guis hth e cl aim s r ais eda g ain ste a chd ef en dant. I n addition to the diversity qu es t io n, Carter & Burgess’s pre senceinth e l awsuit 2 wo uldc re ateani mp edim ent torem oval u n de r 2 8U .S .C

. § 1 4 4 1 (b) b ec au seC art er&Burges s 2 Thi s i s a n i nt e r l o c ut ory app ealf rom an order deny i n g t h e pl ai n t i f fs’m ot i on t o re m and and gr ant i ng t he defendant s’m ot i on t o a m end t hei r not i c e o f r em oval to fe d e r a l co u r t. W e A F F IR M

. I

. Bac kg r o und T h i s c ase ari ses f

rom t h e death of

H u m bert o G u st av M en en dez. M r. M e ne nde z w as fat al l y i nj ur e d i n Gas Ci t y, I ndi ana , w hi l e o pe r at i ng a l i f t ( “ t he J L G l i f t” ) o n a p r oje c t t o b u ild a W a l-M a r t D is tr ib u tio n C e n te r . M a r la M enendez , the daught erof the dec eas ed, broughtt hi s ac t i on i ndi vi dual l y and as t he per so nalr epr es ent at i ve of M r . M enendez ’ s es t at e i n t he 93r d Judi c i al D i s t r i c tCour ti n H i da l go C o unt y, T e xa s . M r . M e ne nde z ’ s w i do w a nd r e m ai ni ng c h ild r e n jo in e d in th e la w s u it. T h e pl ai n t i f

fs asser tt w o separate cau ses of act i on aga i n st t h e defen da n t s. Fi r st , t hey as se r ta s urvivalac t i on o n behal f of M r . M enendez f

ort he per so nal i nj u ri es, ph ysi cal an d m en t al pa i n an d su f feri n g, an d other dam ages h e suf fered pr i o rt o hi s de at h. Se c o nd, e ac h pl ai nt i f f a s s e r t s a w r o ngf

ulde at h c l ai m f

o rt he d a m a g e s th e y su sta in e d a s a re su lt of M r. M e n e n d e z ’s d e a t h

. T h e p la in tiffs ar gue t hatt he de fe nda nt s w e r e neg l i ge nt“ i n t he des i gn, bui l d, co ns t r uc t i o n, a nd
s u p e r v is io n o f th e p r e m is e s a n d /o r th e J L G lift.” 1 The de fe nda nt s f

i l e d a t i m e l y no t i c e o f r e m o va l t o fe de r al c o ur t , a r gui ng t hatr e m o va l w as pr o pe r be c aus e t he pl ai nt i f fs had j o i ne d no n- di ve r s e de fe nda nt Car t e r& Bur ge s s f

o rt he s o l e pur po s e o f de fe at i ng di ve r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n. The pa rt i es d o not di spu t e t h at c om pl et e di versi t y w ou l d exi stbetw een t h e parti es i f defen da n tC art er & B u rgess w as n ot a pa rt y t o t h e sui t
. T h e pl ai n t i f fs m oved 2 Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

is aresi dent of th e fo rum state. Th e “foru m-defendant rul e” is not j uri sdictio nalan d maybe waived

. Inre 1994 E

xxonC hem. F ire , 5 5 8F .3 d 3 7 8 , 3 9 3( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9). Th e defendants assert that theplaintiffs faile d to fileth eir motionto reman d within 3 the thirty-day perio d pre scrib ed by 28 U.S.C. § 1 447 (c), an d h ave accordinglywaived th eir arguments ab out jurisdiction al defects. The plaintiffs did file a m ot ion to reman d on December26 , 20 08, withinth e thirty -daywin dow, but th e di strict court struck themotion as def ic ie nt . A

pro per motionto reman d was not filed until January 13, 200 9, o utsideof the thirty-day time limit . The plaintiffs do not di spute that th eir motionto reman d was not timely file d. 3 t o r e m and t he c as e , a s s e r t i ng t hatt he de fe nda nt s fai l e d t o pr operl y al l e ge t he
c i t i ze nshi p of

t he p a rti es ort he am ount i n co nt r ove r sy , and di sput i ng t hat C a rter & B u rg ess i s an i m p rop erly n a m ed de fen d a n t. 3 T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed the defe n d a n ts l eave to am en d thei r noti ce of
r e m o va l

. The di s t r i c tc o ur t a l s o de ni e d t he pl ai nt i f fs ’m o t i o n t o r e m and , concl u di n g t h at t h e fact s sup porti n g di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on w ere app aren t f rom t h e rec ord; t h e pl ai n t i f fs’cl ai m s, eit h er st an di n g al on e or agg regated, sat i sf i ed t he am ount i n co nt r ove r syr equi r em ent ; and def endant C ar t er& B urge ss had been i m properl y j o i ne d. Acc o r di ngly, t h e di st ri ctcourtret ai n ed j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e case. T h e p l ai n t i f fs f i l ed thi s i n t erl ocutory appea l , chal l en gi n g t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f its m o tio n to re m a n d , m e t h o d o f c a lc u la tin gth e a m o u n t in
c ont r ove r sy , and c onc l usi on t hat non- di ver se def endant C ar t er& B urge ss w as im p r o p e r ly jo in e d

. II

. Stan da rd of R evi ew W e re v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e x e r c is e o f ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . A c una v. B row n & R ootI

n c. , 20 0 F. 3d 33 5, 33 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 00 )

. Fac t ualde t e r m i nat i o ns
r e g a r d in gju r is d ic tio n a r e re v ie w e d fo r cle a r e r r o r . New O rl ean s & G u lf Coast Ry . C o . v . B a rr o is , 5 3 3 F .3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Th e fed era ldi ver si t y s t at ut e, 28 U

. S. C

. § 1332( a) ( 2) , s t at es t hat f ede r al
c o ur t s ha ve j ur i s di c t i o n o ve ral l ci vi la c t i o ns b e t w e e n c i t i z e ns o f a s t at e a nd
c i t i z e ns o rs ubj e c t s o f a f o r e i gn s t at e w he r e t he am o unti n c o nt r o ve r s y e xc e e ds Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

4 $75 , 000
. Th e st atute r equ i res com pl et e di versi t y, m ean i n g t h at a f ederal court
m ay n otexerci se di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on i f an y on e of t h e pl ai n t i f fs i s a c i t i zen of t he s am e s t a t e a s a ny o ne o f t he d e fe nd a nt s . The fe d e r a l r e m o v a l s t a t ut e , 28 U

. S. C. § 1 44 1, a l l o w s de fe nda nt s t o r e m o ve a n a c t i o n t o fe de r alc o ur t i f t he federal di st ri ctcourt w ou l d h ave ori gi n alj u ri sdi ct i on based on di versi t y of
c i t i z e n s h ip a n d n o d e fe n d a n t “ is a cit iz e n o f th e S ta te in w h ic h s u c h a c tio n is b r o u g h t.” § 1 4 4 1 (b ); Co rf i e l d v . Dal l a s Gl e n H i l ls LP , 355 F

. 3d 853 , 857 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). Th e p a r t y s e e ki ng t o i nv o ke fe d e r a l j ur i s d i c t i o n ha s t he b ur d e n t o pr ove b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e t h a t fe d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n e x is ts
. B a rr o is , 533 F

. 3d at 327
. T h e basi s f or di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on m u st b e “ d istin ctly a nd
affi rm a tive ly all eg ed

. ” Mu l l i n s v. T est A m eri ca, I

n c. , 564 F

. 3d 386 , 397 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tati on m a rk s an d ci tati on om i tted). T h i s cou rt ha s stated tha t a fai l u re t o adeq u atel y al l ege t h e basi s f or di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on “ m an da t es d i sm i ssa l

. ” St af

f o r d v

. Mo bi lO i lCor

p. , 94 5 F. 2d 8 03 , 8 05 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 1)

. Any

“ dou bts regardi n g w h et h er r em oval j u risd icti on i s proper shou l d be resol ved
a ga i n st f

ed era lj u ri sd i cti on . ” Acu na , 2 0 0 F .3 d a t 3 3 9
. II I. D i scussi on O n a p p e a l, th e p la in tiffs a s s e r t t h r e e cla im s o f e r r o r in d e n y i n gth e ir
m ot i o n t o r e m a nd

. Fi r s t , t he y a r g ue t ha t t he o r i g i na l no t i c e o f r e m o v al w as de fe c t i ve a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y al l o w i ng t he de fe nda nt s t o a m e nd t he
n ot i ce of

rem oval t o prope rly dem on st rat e di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on . Th ey f u rt h er a s s e r t t h a t th e a m e n d e d n o tic e o f r e m o v a l is d e fic ie n t b e c a u s e it fa ils to p r o p e r ly al l ege t h e ci t i zensh i p of t h e rel evan t parti es ort h at t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy requ i rem en ti s s ati sf i ed. Final l y, t h e pl ai n t i f fs argue that t h e di st ri ctcourt
er r ed by co ncl udi ng t hat non- di ver se def endant C ar t er& B urge ss w as im p r o p e r ly jo in e d

. W e a d d r e s s e a c h o f th e s e a r g u m e n ts in tu r n . Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

5 A

. D ef ec t s i n t he O r i gi nalN ot i c e o f R em oval The pl ai nt i f

fs a s s e r tt hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d b y al l o w i ng t he defenda n t s t o am en d thei r noti ce of rem oval t o corr ect t h e defi ci en t al l egati on s. W e f i n d that t h e pl ai n t i f

fs w ai ved theirob j ect i on s t o t h e suf f i ci en cy of

t h e noti ce of rem oval bec ause t hey fai l ed t o f i l e a pro per m ot i on t o r em and w i t hi n th i rty d a y s o f th e a c tio n b e in gr e m o v e d to fe d e r a l co u r t. S ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 7 (c ); In re S h el lO i lCo. , 9 3 2 F .2 d 1 5 1 8 , 1 5 2 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Fur t he r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t di d no t a bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y al l o w i ng t he d efen d a n ts t o a m en d the i r n oti ce of rem ov a l to a l l eg e f a cts su p p orting dive rsit y j ur i s di c t i o n. I n g r ant i ng t he de fe n d a n t s l e av e t o a m e nd t he i r r e m o va lno t i c e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t r e l i e d o n 28 U

. S. C. § 1 65 3, w hi c h g r ant s c o ur t s t he a ut ho r i t y and di s c r e t i o n t o a l l o w pa r t i e s t o c ur e de fe c t i ve a l l e ga t i o ns o f j u ri sdi c t i o n. The d i stri ct cou rt correctly ob serv ed tha t § 16 5 3 sh ou l d be l i b era lly c on stru ed to al l ow a par t y t o c ure t ec hni c al def ec t s, i ncl udi ng t he fai l ure t o s pec i f i c al l y al l ege th e cit iz e n s h ip o f th e p a r tie s . S e e G e t ty O i lC o r p . v . I n s . Co . of

N

. A m. , 841 F. 2d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 8 n .5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ); W hi t m i r e v . Vi c t us Lt d. , 21 2 F

. 3 d 88 5 , 88 7 -88 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 0)

. The r e f

o r e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t a bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y al l o w i ng th e d e fe n d a n ts to a m e n d th e irn o tic e o f r e m o v a l. B. D e ni alo f

t he M o t i o n t o Rem and The pl ai nt i f

fs a r gue t hatt he a m e nde d no t i c e of re m o va li s de f i c i e nt becau se t h e defen da n t s fai l ed to properl y show t h at t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy
r e q u ir em en t i s sa ti sfi ed an d the pa rti es a re d i ve rse from on e a n oth er. A c c o r d in g ly , th e p la in tiffs a r g u e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y d e n y in gth e ir
m o tio n to re m a n d

. 1. Am o untI n Cont r o ve r s y Al l e ga t i o ns The p l a i n t i f

fs a s s e r t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y f i n d i n gt hat t he
am ou n ti n contr oversy requi rem en t w as sat i sf i ed. Fir st , t h e distri ctcourt
c onc l uded t hat ea c h of t he pl ai nt i f

fs’c l ai m s sat i sf

i ed t he j uri sdi c t i onal Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

6 r e qui r e m e nt
. Se c o nd, i n t he a l t e r nat i ve , t he di s t ri ctc o ur t f o und t hatt he p la in tiffs ’cla im s co u ld b e a g g r e g a te d t o s a t i s fy th e $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 m in im u m . W e concl u de that each of t h e pl ai n t iffs’cl ai m s s ati sf i es t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy requ i rem en t ; accor di n gl y, w e do n o t reach t h e i ssue of w h et h er t h e pl ai n t i f fs’
c la im s m a y b e a g g r e g a te d to s a tis fy th e ju r is d ic tio n a l th r e s h o ld

. To e s t ab l i s h f

e de r al j ur i s di c t i o n, t he r e m o vi ng pa r t y m us t s ho w t hatt he
am ou n ti n contr oversy “ exceeds t h e sum or value of $75 , 000 , excl u si ve of i n t erest and c o s t s . ” 2 8 U

. S. C. § 133 2( a)

. The am o unti n c o nt r o ve r s y i s de t e r m i ne d a tt he tim e o f r e m o v a l. G ebbi a v. W al- Mart S t ores , I

n c. , 233 F

. 3d 880 , 88 3 (5t h C ir

. 20 00 )

. I f a de fe nda nt e s t ab l i s he s “by a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he e vi de nc e t hatt he
am ount i n co nt r ove r syi s g r eat ert han t he j uri sdi c t i onalam ount , ” a pl ai nt i f f m ay defeatrem oval on l y by establ i shi n g t o a l egal cert ai n t y t h at hi s or her r ecovery
w ill n o t ex c e e d th e s ta tu to r y th r e s h o ld

. In re:1 994Exxon C h em . Fi re , 558 F. 3d 3 7 8 , 3 8 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d cit a tio n o m itt e d ). Thi s c o ur tde t e r m i ne s w he t he r t he def e nda nt s ha ve s at i s f

i e d t he a m o unt i n contr oversy requi rem en tby f i rstaski n g w h et h er i t i s “ faci al l y ap pa rent” f rom th e s t a t e co u r t p e tit io n th a t t h e cla im s e x c e e d $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 in v a lu e . See Al l e n v. R

. H

. O i l& G as C o. , 63 F

. 3d 132 6, 133 6 & n. 16 (5t h C i r. 199 5). I f i t i s not facial l y a p p a ren t t h a t t h e m on eta ry req u i rem en t i s sa ti sfi ed , the de fen d a n ts
m ay establ i sh federal j u ri sdi ction by al l egi n g fact s— ei t h er i n t h e peti t i on f or
r e m o v a l o rb y a ffid a v it— th a t s u p p o r t a c o n c lu s io n th a t t h e a m o u n t in
c o n tr o v e r s y re q u ir e m e n t is s a tis fie d

. G arci a v. K och O i l C o. of T

exas, I n c. , 351 F

. 3d 636 , 638

- 39 (5t h C i r. 200 3)

. I n t h i s c ase, t h e defen da n t s di d n oti n t rodu ce addi t i onalfac t s t o s how t hat t he a m ount i n co nt r ove r syr equi r em entw as s at i s f i e d; r at he r , t he y as s e r t e d t hat i t w as fac i al l y ap pa r e ntf r o m t he c o m pl ai nt th a t t h e ju r is d ic tio n a l th r e s h o ld is s a tis fie d

. Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

I n s o h o l di n g , we d o n o t a n n o u nc e a p e r s e rul e th at a wro n gf ul d e ath c l ai mwill 4 alway s sati sfy the amount in controversyrequirement; rather , w e conclude that th e co mplaint inthisc a sesati sf

ie s th e j uri sdiction al thre sh ol d. 7 W e c o nc l ude t hati ti s fac i al l y ap pa r e ntt hate ac h pl ai nt i f f ’ s w r o ngf

ul d ea th cl a i m sa ti sfi es t h e am ou n t i n con trov ersy req u i rem en t. In the com p l a i n t, 4 t he pl ai nt i f

fs, t he chi l dre n of

M r . M enendez , s ee k dam ages f ort hei r per so nal i nj u ri es, i n cl u di n g t h ei r m en t alpain an d suff eri n g, su st ai n ed as a res u l t of M r. M en en dez’ s death. Fu rt h er, pl ai n t i f f A del fa M an ci l l as d e M en en dez, the w i fe of M r. M en en dez, seeks dam ages f or l oss of com pa n i on shi p an d consorti u m . Th ese al l egati on s, t ak en on thei r face, est abli sh that t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy
r e q u ir e m e n t is s a tis fie d

. S ee D e Agu i l ar v. B oei ng C o. , 11 F. 3d 55, 57 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) (h ol di n g t h at, based on t h e face of t h e com pl ai n t , t h e pl ai n t i f fs’cl ai m s f

or
w r o n g fu l d e a th e x c e e d e d th e $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s y th r e s h o ld ); seeal so L u cket tv. D el t a A i rl i n es, I n c. , 171 F

. 3d 295 , 298 ( 5th C i r. 199 9) (h ol di n g t h at, on th e fa c e o f a co m p la in t fo rp e r s o n a l inju r y d a m a g e s , th e p la in tiff ’ s cla im s s a tis fie d th e $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 a m o u n t in co n tr o v e r s y re q u ir e m e n t); G eb b ia , 233 F. 3d at 88 3 (ho l di ng t hati tw as fac i al l y ap pa r e nt f r o m t he pl ai nt i f

f ’ s c o m pl ai ntt hatt he
am ou n ti n contr oversy w as sat i sf i ed w h ere t h e pl ai n t i f f al l eged da m a g es f

or
m e n ta l a n g u is h , su ffe r in g , lo s s o f w a g e s , a n d m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s ). Bec aus e t he a m o unti n c o nt r o ve r s y r e qui r e m e nt i s s at i s f i e d f o r e ac h o f

t he pl ai n t i f fs’ w rongful dea t h cl ai m s, w e n eed not reach w h et h er th e p la i n t i f fs’ survi val act i on sat i sf i es t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy require m e n t. T h e di st ri ct court coul d p roperl y exerci se sup pl em en t al j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e survi val act i on Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

Whilea surviv al action is b rought on beh alf of the decea sed, th e cause of actionan d 5 anyattendant recoverybelon gs to the heirs of the decea sedo rth e de cease d’s le gal re pr es entative ore st ate
. SeeT EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C O D E § 71.02 1 (statin g that the survival ac t io n “ s urvives toan d infavor of th e h eirs, legal represe ntatives, and estateof the inj ured person”). Thus, the surviv al action and wrongful deathaction s, whil e separate causes o f a ctio n , arec lo se lyr el ate d a n d th e exerci seo f su pp le me ntal j uri sdictioni s noti mp ro pe r. Wetre at the plaintiffs’ statement in their briefing befo re the district co urt that Mr. 6 Me n en de zwa s ac itiz eno f T ex a s a s ab in din gj u dici al a dm is sion . SeeCity Na t’l Bankv . United States , 90 7 F .2d 5 36, 544(5th Cir. 1 990) ( no t ing th at the court may“appropri ately tr eat st ate me nts in b ri ef s a s b in din g j u dici al a dm is sion s of f a ct”) ; see a lso R uiz v. Allstate I ns. Co. , 29 5 F . App’x 668 , 671 -72 (5th Cir. 200 8) (unpubli shed) (findingimpro per jo inde r whe re plai ntif f a d m itt e d i n hi s b ri e f i n g b e f o r e th e di s tric t c o urt th at hi s c l ai m s a g ai n s t the non diver sed ef

en dant lack edme rit)

. 8 purs uant t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1367. A c c or di ngl y, t he di st r i c t c our t di d noter rby 5
c o n c lu d in gth a t t h e a m o u n t in co n tr o v e r s y re q u ir e m e n t w a s s a tis fie d

. 2. D i ve r s i t y o f

Ci t i z e ns hi p Al l e ga t i o ns The pl ai nt i f

fs a s s e r tt hatt he a m e nde d no t i ce of rem o va li s de f

i c i e nt be c aus e i t fai l s t o al l e ge t he c i t i z e ns hi p o f M r . M e ne nde z , t he de c e as e d. The federal di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on st atute s t ates t h at, i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er di ve r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n e xi s t s , “ t he l e ga l r e pr e s e nt at i ve o f t he e s t at e o f a de c e de nt
s h a l lb e d e e m e d t o b e a c i t i z e n o n l y o f t h e s a m e S t a t e a s t h e d e c e d e n t
. ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 133 2( c) ( 2)

. Th e am en ded noti ce of rem oval al l eges onl y t h e c iti z e n shi p of M arl a M en en dez, the persona lrep resentat i ve of M r. M en en dez’ s es t ate, an d n ot M r . M e n e n d e z . At o r ala r gum e nta nd i n t he i r b r i e f i ng be f o r e t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , t he p la in tiffs co n c e d e d th a t M r . M e n e n d e z w a s a cit iz e n o f T e x a s a t th e tim e o f h is de at h. I n a ny e ve nt , no o ne c o nt e nds t hatM r . M e ne nde z w as a c i t i z e n o f t he 6
s a m e s ta te a s a n y d e fe n d a n t ot h e r th a n C a r te r & B u r g e s s . T h u s , a n y d e fe c t in t he a m e nde d no t i c e o f r e m o va l i s pur e l y t e c hni c al and t he pl ai nt i f fs w ai ve d a ny ob j ection s to the n otic e o f r e m ov a lby fa i l i n g to fi l e ti m ely a pr op er m oti on to
r e m a n d

. In reS h el lO i lCo. , 93 2 F

. 2 d a t 1 5 2 3
. T o rem ed y th e tech n i ca lde fect,
w e gr a n t t he def

endant s’m ot i on f

orl eave t o a m end t hei r not i c e o f r em oval Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

9 c o n ta in e d in th e ira p p e lla te re s p o n s e b r ie f a n d h o ld th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id
no t e r r i n c o nc l udi ng t hatt he fac t s s upp o r t i ng di ve r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n b e t w e e n t he p la in tiffs a n d th e o u t-o f-s ta te d e fe n d a n ts w e r e a p p a r e n t fr o m th e re c o r d

. S ee 28 U

. S. C. § 1 65 3 ( s t at i ngt h a td e f e c t iv e a l l e ga t i o ns o f

j ur i s di c t i o n “ m ayb e a m e nde d,
u p o n te r m s , in th e tr ia l o r a pp ella te co u r ts ”) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ); seeal so Carl t on v. B aw w , I

n c. , 75 1 F

. 2 d 78 1 , 78 3 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 5 ) (gra n ti n g lea ve on ap p ea lto
am en d t h e j u ri sdi ct i on al al l egati on s i n t h e com pl ai n t an d af f i rm i n g t h e deci si on of t h e di st ri ctcourton the m eri t s)

. D ef en da n t s are ordered to f i l e an am en ded
n o tic e o f r e m o v a l in t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta tin gM r . M e n e n d e z ’ s cit iz e n s h ip w ith in t hi r t y da ys o f

t hi s o pi ni o n. 3. I m proper Joi n der I n t h e f i n a ls t e p o f d e t e r mi n i n g wh e t h e r d i v e r s i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n e x i s t s , we
n ow add ress w h et h er t h e pl ai n t iffs i m properl y j oi n ed d ef en da n t C art er & B u rgess t o defeat di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on . Th e parti es agree t h at i f non - di verse defenda n tC art er & B u rgess w as properl y j oi n ed, federal j u ri sdi ct i on does not
e x is t a n d th e ca s e s h o u ld b e re m a n d e d to s ta te co u r t. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf

o und t hat t he r e w as no r e as o nab l e po s s i bi l i t y t hatt he pl ai nt i f fs c o ul d r e c o ve rf

r o m r esi den t def

e nda ntCar t e r & Bur ge s s a nd t hus
con clu ded t h at C art er & B u rgess w as i m properl y j oi n ed. Th e di st ri ctcourt
r e l i e d on t he af

f i da vi tof

E d H e s s , an em pl o ye e o f Car t e r & Bur ge s s , t o c o nc l ude th a t C a rter & B u rg ess d i d n ot ow e th e d ece d en t or the plain ti ffs an y lega ldu ty
w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e b u i l d i n g , c o n s t r u c t i o n , s u p e r v i s i o n , o r c o n t r o lo v e rt he pr e m i s e s o rl i f

tbe c aus e t he y w e r e noti nvo l ve d i n t he s e t as ks

. Al t e r nat i ve l y, t he d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld t h a t th e p la in tiffs h a d fa ile d t o a tt a c h a c e r tific a te o f m e r it in suppor t of t hei rc l ai m s f orpr of es si onalnegl i genc e a gai nstC ar t er& B urge ss , as req u i red by T ex a s C i vilP r a c ti ce & R em ed i es C od e § 1 5 0
. 0 0 2
. W e h old th a t, b a se d o n th e H e ss a ffi d a v it, th e re is n o re a so n a b le po ss ib il ity th a t th e p la in tiffs Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

I n so holding , we de clin e toreach the secon d basi s for the district co urt’s decision that 7 Ca r ter & Burgess was i mproperly jo ine d. We e xpre ss no vi ews onwhether Tex as C ivil Practice& Reme dies Code§ 150 .002preclude s the plaintiffs from recove rin g from C arte r & B urges s. 10 c an r e c o ve rf

r o m i n- s t at e de fe nda ntCar t e r& Bu r g e s s ; a c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i r m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ng t hatCar t e r & Bur ge s s w as i m pr o pe r l y j o i ne d. 7 T h e f ed era l rem ov a l statu te states th a t su i ts th a t a ri se u n d e r d i ve rsit y j u ri sdi ct i on are rem ovab l e “only i f n on e of the p art i es i n i n t erestproperl y j oi n ed
a n d s e r v e d a s d e fe n d a n ts is a cit iz e n o f th e S ta te in w h ic h s u c h a c tio n is brou gh t
. ” 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1441 (b)

. Im proper j oi n der m ay be establ i shed by ei t h er

“ ( 1) a c t ualf

r aud i n t he pl ead i ng o f j ur i s di c t i o nalfac t s , o r ( 2) i nab i l i t y o f t he pl ai nt i f f t o es t abl i sh a c ause of ac t i on agai nst t he non- di ver se par t y i n state
c ou rt. ” S m all w oodv. Il l

. C ent. R

. R

. Co. , 38 5 F. 3d 56 8, 57 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 04) ( en b a n c) (cita tion om itted ). I n th is ca se , th e re is n o cla im th a t th e p la in tiffs f rau du l en t l y pl ead ed j u ri sdi ct i on alfact s; accor di n gl y, onl y t h e sec on d type of im p r o p e rjo in d e ris a t is s u e . To det er m i ne w het hernon- di ver se def endant C ar t er& B urge ss w as i m properl y j oi n ed, w e ask “ w h et h er t h e defenda n t ha s dem on st rat ed that t h ere i s no possi bi l i t y of

rec overy by the pl ai n t i f f against[ C art er & B u rgess] , w h i ch st ated di f

ferentl y m ean s t h at there i s no reasona bl e basi s f or t h e di st ri ctcourt to p red i ct t h a t t h e p l a i n ti ff m i gh t be a b l e to rec o v e r ag a i n st [ i t]

. ” S m all w ood , 385 F. 3d at573. P ut anot herw ay, “ t her e m ustbe a re a so n a b le possibi l i t y of
r ec ove r y, notm er el y a t he o r e t i c alon e.” C ampb el lv. S t on e I n s. , I n c. , 509 F. 3d 665 , 669 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) ( qu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). T h e bu rden of p ersu a sion on a p a rty a sse rti n g im p rop er joi n d er is a “h e a v y o n e.” Id .; Kl i ng R eal ty Co. , I

n c. v. C h evron US

A , I n c. , 5 7 5 F .3 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). In an a l yz i n g w h eth er a plain ti ff h a s d em on st r at ed a r eas onable p oss i b i l i ty
o f r e c o ve r y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ay“ c o nduc t a R ul e 12(b) ( 6)

- t yp e a nal ys i s , l o o ki ng Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

Th e pl aintiffs moved tostrike th e Hess affidavit in the district co urt
. Th e di strict 8 court denied the motion . The plaintiffs-appell ant s have not appealed the deni al of th e motion tostrike

. 11 i ni t i al l y att he al l e ga t i o ns of t he c o m pl ai ntt o de t e r m i ne w he t he r t he c o m pl ai nt st ates a c l ai m und e rs t at e l aw ag ai ns t t he i n- s t at e de fe nda nt , ” o r “ t he di s t r i ct court m ay, i n i t s di scr et i on , pi erce t h e pl ead i n gs an d co n d u ct a su m m ary i n q u i ry . ” S m all w ood , 385 F

. 3d at 573
. In d oi n g so, how ever, t h e court“ m u stal so t ak e i n t o accoun tal lun cha l l en ged fact u alal l e g a ti on s, i n cl u di n g t h ose al l eged i n the com p l a i n t, i n the l i gh t m ost fav ora b l e to th e p l a i n ti ff

. ” Tr avi s v. I r by , 326 F

. 3d 644 , 649 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)

. A n y am bi gu i t i es i n st ate l aw or contest ed fact is s u e s m u s t b e r e s o lv e d in fa v o r o f th e p la in tiff

. Id

. “[ T ] h e f ocus of t h e i n qu i ry
m u s t b e on the j oin d er, n ot the m erits of t h e p l a i n ti ff ’ s ca se.” S m all w ood , 3 85 F .3 d a t 5 7 3
. The s o l e a l l e ga t i o ns aga i ns t def e nda ntC ar t e r & Bur ge s s a ppe ari n Count I o f t he pl ai nt i f

fs ’ com pl ai nt
. The y as s e r t t hatt he de fe nda nt s “ w e r e ne gl i ge nt i n t he de s i gn, b ui l d, c o ns t r uc t i o n, a nd s upe r vi s i o n o f t he pr e m i s es an d/ ort he J G L lift b y fa ilin gt o r e c o g n iz e , e lim in a te , o r co n tr o l h a z a r d s , w h ic h re s u lte d in th e inju ry an d su b seq u en t de a th of th e d ece d en t. ” Acl a i m of n eg l i ge n ce co n sist s o f th re e es se n tia l elem e n ts: “1 ) a le g a l du ty ow e d b y on e p e rs o n to a n o th e r; 2 ) a b r e a c h o f

t h a t d u ty ; a n d 3 ) d a m a g e s p r o x im a te ly re s u ltin gfr o m th e b r e a c h .” G reat er Hou st o n Tr ans p. Co. v . Phi l l i

ps , 8 0 1 S. W

. 2 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 5 ( Te x . 1 9 9 0 )

. To
e s t ab l i s h l i a b i l i t y , t h e p l a i n t i f fs m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e b o t h t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d t he
v io la tio n o f a le g a l d u ty o w e d to th e p la in tiffs b y th e d e fe n d a n t. Id

. In sup port of

t h ei r f r aud ul e ntj o i nderargu m en t , t h e defen da n t s s u bm i t t ed t h e af f i da vi tof

E d H ess, a seni or proj ectm an ager f or C art er & B u rgess. H ess 8 t e s t i f i e d a bo utt he e xt e nto f t he s e r vi c e s pr o vi de d b y Car t e r & B u rge s s f o rt he W a l-M a r t D is tr ib u tio n C e n te rp r oje c t. H e s s s ta te d th a t: Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

12 T h e sc ope of

ser vi ces [ pro v id ed by C art er & B u rgess] speci f i cal l y excl u des au t h ori t y over or r espon sibi l i t y f or t h e m ean s, m et h ods, t echn i qu e s, sequen ces or pr o c e dur e s o f

co ns t r uc t i o n s e l e c t e d b y c o nt r ac t o r s . The s c o pe o f s e r vi c e s f

ur t he r s pe c i f

i c al l y e xc l udes any r e s po ns i bi l i t y f

o ro ri nvo l ve m e nti n s af e t y pr e c aut i o ns an d p rogram s i n ci den t t o t h e w ork of contr act ors. F u rt h er, t h e sc ope o f s ervi ces di ct ates t h at C art er & Burg e s s i s no tr e spons i bl e f o r t he fai l ur e o f

a ny contract ors t o com pl y w i t h t h e l aw s, rul es, regul ati on s, ordi n an ces, codes, or orders ap pl i cabl e t o contr act ors fu r n is h in go rp e r fo r m in gth e irw o r k

. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d e fe n d a n ts a s s e r t t h a t C a r te r & B u r g e s s c a n n o t b e h e ld lia b le fo rth e inju r ie s a n d d e a th o f M r . M e n e n d e z . I n r e s po ns e , t he pl ai nt i f fs a s s e r t t h a tt h e d i s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d b y c o nduc t i ng a sum m ary i n qu i ry i n t o t h e m eri t s of t h ei r c l ai m s agai n stC a rte r & B u rgess,
r at hert han a R ul e 1 2(b) ( 6)

- t ype i n q u i ry . T hi s ar gum entfai l s. W e have
r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t ha ta c o ur tm a y p i e r c e t he p l e a d i ng s a nd c o ns i d e r s um m ar yj u dg m en t

- t yp e evi den ce t o deter m i n e w h et h er j oi n der of a party w as proper. S m all w ood , 3 85 F. 3d a t5 73
. I nde e d, i n In re : 1 9 9 4Exx on C h em i calFi re , th is
c o ur te xa m i ne d e xt e ns i ve dep osi t i o n t e s t i m o ny and a f f i da vi t s t o de t e r m i ne
w h e th e rth e p la in tiffs co u ld s h o w in d iv id u a l lia b ility fo r a n y o f th e a lle g e d ly i mp r o p e r l y j o i n e d d e fe n d a n t s . 5 5 8 F

. 3 d a t 3 8 5

- 8 7
. Af t e r t h a t r e v i e w, we c o nc l ude d t hatt he i ndi vi dua l d efenda nt s w e r e i m pr o pe r l y j o i ne d b e c aus e no e v id e n c e in th e re c o r d s h o w e d th a t th e n o n -d iv e r s e d e fe n d a n ts w e r e p e r s o n a lly lia b le fo rth e to r tio u s co n d u c t. Id . a t 3 8 6 -8 7 ; seeal so Kl i ng R eal ty Co. , I n c. , 575 F

. 3d at 516 ( con clu d in g fr om t h e evi den ce i n t h e rec ord t h at t h e non - di verse d e fe n d a n ts w e r e im p r o p e r ly jo in e d b e c a u s e n o e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d a re a s o n a b le p oss i b i l i ty of recov ery ag a i n st t h em ). W h ere the reco rd fa i l s to su p p ort a
reasona bl e pos sibi l i t y of rec ove r y and m er el y s ugges t s a t heor et i c alpos sibi l i t y, th is co u r t h a s fo u n d im p r o p e rjo in d e r . Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

The defen ses asserted b y Carter & Burgess do n otapply equ ally to the remainin g 9 de fe n dants ; a cc or din gly , th e di strictc ourtdidnote rrb yd enyin gth e mo tiont o re man d. See R i c o v . F

lores , 4 81 F.3 d 23 4, 2 37 (5thC ir. 2 007) (no ting th at, und er Smallwood , “adistrict court must reman d a case where a defen dantasserts a defen se in support of i mproper jo inde r th at isdis po sitive of

allc laim s inth e a ctio n”) ; Smallwood , 3 8 5F .3 d at 5 7 1
. 13 H ere, t h e pl ai n t i f

fs argue th at C art er & B u rgess provi ded proj ect
m an agem en tser vi ces, an d thu s m ay be h el d l i able f or t h e neg l i gen t provi si on of t h ese s ervi ces or t h e cr eati on of a d a n g erous cond i t i on . Th e pl ai n t i f fs r el y on Ma th is v

. RK

L D es ig n / B u ild , 1 89 S. W

. 3d 8 39 ( Tex

. App.

— H o us t o n 2 00 6, no pe t
. )

. The c o ur ti n Ma th is di d obs er ve t hat , i n a pr em i se s l i abi l i t y ac t i on, “ [ a] gen eralcontr act or on a constr u ct i on si t e, w h o i s i n contro l o f th e p r e m is e s , is ch a rg e d w ith th e sa m e d u ty [to k e e p th e p re m ise s u n d e r h is c o n t r o l in a sa fe
con d i ti on . ]” Id . a t 8 4 4
. B u t w h e r e a d e fe n d a n t la c k e d c o n tr o l o v e r th e a lle g e d ly
u n s a fe p r e m is e s , th e d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t ow e th e p la in tiff a d u ty o f c a r e . Id

. at 8 4 5
. In th is ca se, t h ere are n o fact s i n t h e rec ord show i n g t h at C art er & B u rgess “ ow n ed, occ u pi ed, or creat ed the [ JL G l i f t ] or agreed t o m ak e i t safe, ” or th a t it a c tu a lly c o n tr o lle d th e p r e m is e s . Ma th is , 189 S. W

. 3d at845. N orhave t h e pl ai n t i f

fs al l eged an y l i n k betw een t h e ser vi ces p ro v id e d b y C art er & B urge ss and t he dea t h of M r . M enendez

. Cart er& B u rg es s w as nota g ener al cont r ac t o r and di d n otprovi de si m i l ar ser vi ces. Th e pl ai n t i f fs hav e not c on t est ed H ess’ s t est i m on y t h at t h e C art er & B u rg e ss c o n t ractexpressl y di scl ai m ed
r e s po ns i bi l i t y f

o rt he s upe r vi s i o n o f o t he r c o nt r ac t o r s o r t he safet y of t he pre m i se s. A c c or di ngl y, t he di st r i c t c our t di d noter r by c onc l udi ng t hat de fe nda ntCar t e r& Bur ge s s w as i m pr o pe r l y j o i ne d b e c aus e t he r e w as no rea son a b l e pos sibi l i ty th a t t h e p l a i n ti ffs cou l d reco ve r f rom i t. See I

n re :1994 9 Exxon C h em . Fi re , 5 5 8 F .3 d a t 3 8 6 -8 7 (fin d in gt h a t d e fe n d a n ts w e r e im p r o p e r ly Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/01/2010N o. 09- 40993

14 j oi n ed becau se t h e pl ai n t i f f fai l ed to al l ege fa cts show i n g t h at t h e non - di verse d e fe n d a n ts w e r e re s p o n s ib le fo r th e inju r ya lle g e d ). IV

. C on cl u si on Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he m o t i o n f o r l e av e t o a m e nd i s G RA N TE D , t he ord er of the distri ct c o u r t gra n ti n g lea ve to am en d an d de n yin g th e m oti on to
r e m a n d is A F F IR M E D , a n d th e c a s e is R E M A N D E D fo r fu r t h e r p r o c e e d in g s . Case: 09-40993 Document: 00511017220 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/01/2010