C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. ALM Baton Rouge, LLC and Amazon.com Services, LLC; C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC, et al. v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Missy A. Stoker

Summary

A Magistrate Judge’s Report, Recommendation, and Order in consolidated diversity actions concerning Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The court recommends denying remand and dismissing nondiverse defendant Missy A. Stoker without prejudice, concluding that Plaintiffs have no reasonable basis for recovery against her under claims including negligence, fraud, LUTPA, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The notice states that written objections are due within 14 days of service.

Holdings

1. Stoker was improperly joined because Plaintiffs had no reasonable basis for the court to predict that they could recover against her on any asserted claim. Her Louisiana citizenship could therefore be disregarded, and remand should be denied.
2. Plaintiffs could not state a negligence claim against Stoker because the claims involved only economic injuries, not bodily injuries, and the alleged conduct occurred while Stoker acted as an ALI employee rather than in a personal capacity.
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a fraud claim against Stoker because they did not plausibly allege that Stoker made a specific material misrepresentation, obtained a benefit, or participated in a sufficiently particularized fraudulent investigation.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state a LUTPA claim against Stoker because they did not allege a sufficient causal nexus between Stoker's conduct and the contract termination, that Stoker had authority to require remote work or terminate the contract, or conduct sufficiently egregious to constitute an unfair or deceptive practice.
5. Plaintiffs failed to state a Louisiana intentional-interference-with-contract claim because Stoker was alleged to be an operations manager and employee, not a corporate officer.
6. Plaintiffs failed to state a civil-conspiracy claim because Louisiana does not recognize an independent conspiracy cause of action and the complaint did not plausibly allege an agreement between Stoker and another person to commit an underlying tort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Missy A. Stoker was improperly joined as a nondiverse defendant because Plaintiffs had no reasonable basis for recovery against her under Louisiana law.
2. Whether Plaintiffs stated a negligence claim against Stoker for economic injuries allegedly caused by acts performed in the course of her employment.
3. Whether Plaintiffs stated claims against Stoker for fraud, violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, or conspiracy.
4. Whether Plaintiffs stated a Louisiana intentional-interference-with-contract claim against Stoker, an operations manager rather than a corporate officer.
5. Whether the member case should be remanded for lack of complete diversity.

Disposition

other