C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC, et al v. ALM Baton Rouge, LLC, et al

Filing 19

NOTICE AND ORDER: The 13 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Notice of Removal, is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. On or before 10/3/2024, Plaintiffs Chad Robinson and C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC shall file a response to the Ex Parte Motion, limited to 10 pages. ALTERNATIVELY, on or before that same date, Plaintiffs may seek leave to file an amended complaint as stated herein. By no later than 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' brief, Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC may seek leave to file a reply brief also limited to 10 pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 9/24/2024. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
C. ROBINSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS
24-512-JWD-EWD
ALM BATON ROUGE, LLC AND
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC
NOTICE AND ORDER
Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) removed this case to this Court on
June 21, 2024, alleging subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.1 The Petition alleges
that Plaintiffs Chad Robinson (“Robinson”) and C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC lost a lucrative
contract with a non-party (Amazon Logistics, Inc.) because Amazon and co-defendant ALM Baton
Rouge, LLC (“ALM”) failed to provide security measures in or around the facility owned and/or
maintained by them, which would have precluded the altercation that led to the termination of
Plaintiffs’ contract.2
The Notice of Removal (“NOR”), relying on the Petition, adequately alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.3 Robinson, the only
member of Plaintiff C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC, is properly alleged to be Louisiana citizen, and
Amazon is properly alleged to unwind to a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Washington.4 However, the citizenship of ALM, which is alleged to have one member,
LM Logistics REIT (“REIT”), a real estate investment trust, was not adequately pleaded in the
NOR. This is because the REIT’s trustees and members were not identified and only negative

1

R. Docs. 1, ¶ 4.
R. Doc. 1-2, ¶¶ 6-15. The Petition alleges that, during an employee meeting conducted by Plaintiffs, an employee
“screened for employment by Defendants (or their related entities or third-party contractors” became unruly, which
ultimately led to the employee threatening Robinson in the parking lot and Robinson retrieving his firearm from his
vehicle due to fear for his safety. Id. at ¶¶ 7-12. Plaintiffs allege that months later, Amazon Logistics, Inc. terminated
the contract because Plaintiffs breached policies, presumably when Robinson armed himself and/or due to his
possession of a firearm at the facility. Id. at ¶ 14.
3
R. Doc. 1, ¶6; R. Doc. 1-2, ¶ 13.
4
R. Doc. 1, ¶ 5.
2

allegations of citizenship were given.5 The Court’s June 25, 2024 briefing Order noted these
pleading deficiencies and ordering Amazon to seek leave to file an amended Notice of Removal
to correct the citizenship allegations.6 In response, Amazon filed a motion for leave to file an
amended Notice of Removal that was denied because it still failed to adequately allege the
citizenship of ALM.7 Amazon was again ordered to file an amended Notice of Removal that
adequately alleged the citizenship of ALM.8
Currently before the Court is Amazon’s latest response, which is an Ex Parte Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Notice of Removal (“Ex Parte Motion”). The Ex Parte Motion
newly contends that ALM’s citizenship should be disregarded because ALM is improperly joined
as a defendant.9 Specifically, Amazon argues that, “While Plaintiffs allege ‘Defendants’ failed to
provide adequate security measures, they fail to allege any facts establishing ALM plausibly had
a duty to provide security and otherwise fail to allege facts regarding ALM’s role in the alleged
events or why ALM would be liable to Plaintiffs.”10 Amazon alleges that Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
allege claims for breach of contract, negligence, and tortious interference with contract against
ALM, and, moreover, that ALM’s status as a lessor of the facility is insufficient to support a claim
for liability.11 Amazon alleges that, per the lease, Amazon was cast with any security obligations,
not ALM.12
Plaintiffs’ Petition asserts that Defendants “owned or maintained” the facility out of which
Plaintiffs provided services and were conducting a meeting on the day of the altercation; that the
employee which engaged in the altercation was “screened for employment by Defendants (or their

5

R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc. 8.
7
R. Doc. 9.
8
R. Doc. 12.
9
R. Doc. 13. As such, ALM’s citizenship remains unclear.
10
R. Doc. 13-2, ¶ 10.
11
R. Doc. 13-2, ¶¶ 12-13.
12
R. Doc. 13-2, ¶¶ 14; R. Doc. 17-1, pp. 3-43.
2
6

related entities or third-party contractors);” Defendants did not have any security personnel or
measures at the facility or in the parking lot; Defendants did not display any signs prohibiting
weapons in the parking lot or in vehicles; “Defendants failed to provide reasonably adequate
security measures on their property including but not limited to not having a security guard and
gate to get into their parking lot, and by not having a security guard or metal detectors at the
entrance to the facility;” and, “[a]s a proximate result of Defendants’ failure to provide reasonably
adequate security measures, Plaintiffs lost his lucrative contract with ALI, costing Plaintiffs
millions in lost revenues and profits and damaging Plaintiffs’ reputation in the community.”13
As Plaintiffs currently assert a claim against ALM, whom Amazon contends is improperly
joined, on or before October 3, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Ex Parte Motion, limited
to 10 pages, addressing the alleged improper joinder of ALM.14 Alternatively, on or before that
same date, Plaintiffs may seek leave to file an amended complaint deleting all claims against ALM,
if Plaintiffs agree that ALM is improperly joined. Amazon may seek leave to file a reply brief, as
applicable, also limited to 10 pages, no later than 14 days after Plaintiffs’ response.
The Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may exercise diversity jurisdiction in
this matter,15 and will decide if jurisdiction exists in the context of the current Ex Parte Motion
and the briefing ordered. In other words, Plaintiffs do not need to file a motion to remand if they
believe ALM is properly joined.

13

R. Doc. 1-2, ¶¶ 6-7, 9, 11, 15-16.
Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds, 181 F.3d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1999) (“To establish that a non-diverse defendant has been
[improperly] joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction, the removing party must prove ... that there is absolutely no
possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against the [in-state] defendant.”). See also
Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568, 573 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he test for fraudulent joinder is whether the
defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff against an in-state [or nondiverse]
defendant, which stated differently means that there is no reasonable basis for the district court to predict that the
plaintiff might be able to recover against an in-state [or nondiverse] defendant.”).
15
See McDonal v. Abbott Laboratories, 408 F.3d 177, 182, n. 5 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A]ny federal court may raise subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”).
3
14

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Notice of
Removal,16 filed by Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC, is TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before October 3, 2024, Plaintiffs Chad
Robinson and C. Robinson Enterprises, LLC shall file a response to the Ex Parte Motion,17 limited
to 10 pages. ALTERNATIVELY, on or before that same date, Plaintiffs may seek leave to file
an amended complaint deleting all claims against ALM, if Plaintiffs agree that ALM is improperly
joined.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by no later than 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’
brief, Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC may seek leave to file a reply brief also limited to
10 pages.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will determine jurisdiction in the context of
the Ex Parte Motion and the briefing ordered. Because the Court has sua sponte raised the issue of
whether subject matter jurisdiction may be exercised in this case, further motions challenging
jurisdiction shall not be filed.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 24, 2024.

S

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17

R. Doc. 13.
R Doc. 13.
4