Richardson v. Exxon Corp.

Summary

The court considers whether a Pennsylvania resident co-defendant, an Exxon truck driver, was properly joined in a diversity action arising from a fatal truck collision. It holds that the driver was a real party in interest because the complaint asserted a colorable claim against him and Exxon could potentially seek indemnification, so his presence barred removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); the case was remanded to state court.

Holdings

1. A defendant who is a real party in interest and against whom a colorable cause of action is asserted is a party in interest under § 1441(b); that defendant's citizenship in the forum state precludes removal of a diversity action.
2. Remand is not limited to cases in which the in-state defendant is technically an indispensable party under Rule 19; an in-state defendant who is a real party in interest and against whom a colorable claim exists defeats removal.
3. Sehmoyer was a real party in interest because the complaint directly sought relief against him, Exxon could not be held vicariously liable without a cause of action against him, and Exxon could potentially seek indemnification from him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a properly joined, nonfraudulently sued defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought precludes removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
2. Whether removal may nevertheless be sustained when the in-state defendant is not technically an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
3. Whether Sehmoyer was a real party in interest against whom the plaintiffs asserted a colorable cause of action.

Disposition

remanded