Hooten v. Boyer

Filing 63

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Sidney Hooten's 31 MOTION to Remand ; (2) this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama; (3) Defs State of Arkansas and Arkansas States University's 29 & 33 motions to dismiss are left for resolution after remand; directing the clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the remand; this case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/23/15. Furnished to calendar group & AG (terminates Final Pretrial Conference 09/10/2015; Jury Trial 10/05/2015).(djy, ) Modified on 7/23/2015 to clarify text to reflect a certified copy as mailed to Circuit Court Montgomery County (qc/djy, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
SIDNEY HOOTEN,
individually and as an
incapacitated person by
and through his next
friend Nicole Harris,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN KEITH BOYER,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv355-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff

Sidney

Hooten

brings

this

action

against defendants Brian Keith Boyer, the State of
Arkansas,

and

Arkansas

State

University

(Boyer’s

employer), claiming that Boyer’s negligent, reckless,
and wanton conduct caused a car crash in which Hooten
sustained

severe

injuries

including

brain

trauma.

This case was removed from state to federal court

based

on

diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction.

See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1447.
The cause is before the court on Hooten’s motion
for

remand

as

well

as

the

State

of

Arkansas

Arkansas State University’s motions to dismiss.
reasons

that

follow,

the

remand

motion

will

and
For
be

granted and the dismissal motions will be left for
resolution after remand.

I. REMAND STANDARD
Federal

courts

are

courts

of

limited

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co.,
31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994), abrogated on
other grounds by, 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

A federal court

may hear a case only if it is authorized to do so by
federal law.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

The party

seeking removal has the burden of establishing it.
Burns, 31 F.3d at 1095.

The removal statute must be
2

strictly

construed

because

federalism concerns.
Sheets,

313

federal-court

U.S.

100

it

raises

significant

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.
(1941).

jurisdiction

All

should

favor of a remand to state court.

doubts

be

about

resolved

in

Burns, 31 F.3d at

1095.

II. BACKGROUND
This case arises from a car crash on an Alabama
road

in

February

2014

between

defendant

Boyer

and

plaintiff Hooten, in which Hooten suffered traumatic
brain

injury.

(While

the

complaint

refers

to

the

defendant as Boyer and Boyers, the court will use
“Boyer” for consistency.)

Hooten claims that Boyer’s

negligence, recklessness, and wantonness caused the
crash.

At the time of the crash, Boyer was employed

as a basketball coach for Arkansas State University,
a public university in Arkansas, and was travelling

3

for work.

Hooten is a citizen of Alabama, and Boyer

is a citizen of Arkansas.
Hooten sued Boyer in state court in April 2014,
and

Boyer

following

removed
month.

the

case

to

In

federal

November

2014,

court

Hooten

the
took

Boyer’s deposition, in which Boyer explained that he
was traveling in Alabama as part of a road trip for
his

basketball

before

the

team.

In

scheduling-order

March

2015,

deadline,

three

Hooten

days
moved

for leave to file a third amended complaint, which
added Arkansas and its university as defendants.

The

court granted the motion but provided Boyer time to
object.

Boyer did not object, Hooten filed the third

amended complaint, and the two new defendants were
served in late March 2015.
The State of Arkansas moved to dismiss on an
Eleventh Amendment ground, and Hooten followed a day
later with a motion to remand.

4

The university then

filed a motion to dismiss the same week.

These three

motions are now before the court.

III. DISCUSSION
Hooten moves to remand the case to state court,
contending that, because the State of Arkansas and
Arkansas State University do not count as citizens
for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, there is no
longer complete diversity.
28 U.S.C. § 1332 governs diversity-of-citizenship
jurisdiction
relevant

in

part,

federal
that

court.

states,

federal

a

It
court

can

in
have

jurisdiction if the amount in controversy is above
$ 75,000
different

and

the

lawsuit

states.”

is

This

between

“citizens

diversity

must

of
be

complete--that is, “the allegations must show that
the citizenship of each plaintiff is different from
that of each defendant.”
Purcell,

2010

WL

Algoma Properties, LLC v.

3283396,
5

at

*1

(M.D.

Ala.

2010)

(Thompson, J.) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S.
(3

Cranch)

entity

or

citizen

267

(1806)).

political

of

that

Id.

Although

subdivision

State

for

of

a

purposes

a

public

State
of

is

a

diversity

jurisdiction, “an arm or alter ego of the State” is
not a citizen of that State.
Tobacco

Co.,

168

F.3d

405,

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
412

(11th

(internal quotation marks omitted).
not

a

citizen

diversity.

of

any

State

Cir.

1999)

A party that is

destroys

complete

Id.

Both parties agree, with good reason, that adding
the State of Arkansas and Arkansas State University
destroys complete diversity.

See Am. Tobacco Co.,

168 F.3d at 412 (analogizing to Eleventh Amendment
analysis

to

find

that

a

State

and

its

public

universities are alter egos of the State and thus not
citizens for diversity-of-citizenship purposes).

The

State of Arkansas and the university, however, argue

6

that they do not destroy jurisdiction in this case
because Hooten joined them as parties after removal.
It is generally the case that, in determining
whether the pleadings support removal, “the critical
time is the date of removal,” Leonard v. Enter. Rent
a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002).

However,

“[i]f

to

after

additional
subject

removal

the

defendants

matter

plaintiff

whose

jurisdiction,

seeks

joinder
the

would

court

join

destroy

may

deny

joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to
the State court.”
“In
under

determining

§ 1447(e),

involved.”
2013

WL

28 U.S.C. § 1447.
whether

the

court

joinder

is

balances

appropriate

the

equities

Fletcher v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,

3854491

(M.D.

Ala.

2013)

(Thompson,

J.).

Relying on the so-called Hensgens factors, “the court
should consider the extent to which the purpose of
the

amendment

is

to

defeat

federal

jurisdiction,

whether [the] plaintiff has been dilatory in asking
7

for

amendment,

whether

[the]

plaintiff

will

be

significantly injured if amendment is not allowed,
and any other factors bearing on the equities.”

Id.

(quoting Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182
(5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 (1989))
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, at the time Hooten was allowed to amend his
complaint to add Arkansas and its university, Boyer
was given an opportunity to object to the allowance,
an opportunity during which he could have argued that
the amendment should not have been allowed under the
Hensgens
contention

factors.
now

Boyer

that

the

did

not

amendment

do

should

so.
not

His
have

been allowed comes too late.
Arkansas and its university also argue that the
court

should

not

allow

the

amendment

adding

them.

However, the statute is clear that, once the court
permits joinder, the action is to be remanded. An
argument could therefore be made that once this court
8

allowed the joinder of Arkansas and its university,
it had no choice then, and thus has no choice now,
but

to

remand,

lacks,

that

is,

jurisdiction

remand--especially
directive that

that
to

in

the

it

lacked,

do
face

and

anything
of

the

now
but

federalism

removal statutes should be strictly

construed in favor of remand. This court need not
resolve this issue, for, even if it has the authority
to undo the allowance of the amendment, see Bevels,
100 F. Supp. 2d at 1314, it would, in the exercise
its discretion, not do so.

First, Arkansas and its

university have not only been added as parties, they
have

been

Second,

served

while

Eleventh

it

and
can

Amendment

have
be

law

made

said

with

would

an

appearance.

certainty

prohibit

these

that
two

defendants from being sued in this federal court, Am.
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d at 412, and while Alabama law
would

prohibit

universities

from

the

State

being

sued
9

of
in

Alabama
an

and

Alabama

its
state

court, Ala. Agr. & Mech. Univ. v. Jones, 895 So. 2d
867,

872-73

(Ala.

2004),

Alabama

is

not

bound

by

federal law to apply immunity in its courts for other
States and their universities, Nevada v. Hall, 440
U.S. 410, 426 (1979), nor have Alabama courts always
guaranteed such immunity to other States and their
universities,

see,

e.g.,

Faulkner

v.

Univ.

of

Tennessee, 627 So. 2d 362, 366 (Ala. 1992) (declining
to

extend

sovereign

immunity

to

the

University

of

Tennessee).
***

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff

Sidney

Hooten’s

motion

to

remand

(doc. no. 31) is granted.
(2) This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County, Alabama.
(3) Defendants

State

of

Arkansas

and

Arkansas

State University’s motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 29
10

and 33) are left for resolution after remand.
The

clerk

the

court

is

DIRECTED

to

take

appropriate steps to effect the remand.
This case is closed in this court.
DONE, this the 23rd day of July, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE