Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana; September 13, 2018; Federal District Court
Judge Brian A. Jackson addressed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which advised remanding the case due to a lack of complete diversity among parties, specifically because the Parish of West Feliciana, a non-diverse party, was included as a defendant. The parties were notified of a 14-day period to file objections. Defendants First Specialty Insurance Corporation and Red Frog Events objected, arguing that the Louisiana Recreational Use Immunity Statute's "playground exception" does not pertain to the obstacles at the event, thus claiming the Parish's joinder was improper. However, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that unresolved factual issues prevent a conclusive determination of the Parish's immunity.
Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, ordering the case to be remanded to the 20th Judicial District Court for West Feliciana Parish and declaring the Motion to Remand moot. The case arose from injuries sustained by plaintiffs Kara Jo Allen and Courtney Stricklin during a 2016 "Warrior Dash" race when a wooden structure known as the "Diesel Dome" collapsed. They filed their Petition for Damages against multiple defendants, including the Parish, in state court on October 4, 2017.
Red Frog removed the case to federal court on November 15, 2017, citing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Red Frog claims that all parties, except West Feliciana, are completely diverse and argues that West Feliciana was improperly joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. According to Red Frog, an agreement (the "Venue Agreement") grants it exclusive use of the West Feliciana Parish Sports Park, where the Warrior Dash event took place, and asserts that West Feliciana had no involvement in the event's construction or medical services. Red Frog argues that the Venue Agreement transferred all responsibilities related to the park's condition and safety to it and contends that Louisiana law does not impose any duty on West Feliciana regarding the event's safety or supervision.
On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand, asserting viable claims against West Feliciana and arguing that it is not entitled to statutory immunity under Louisiana's Recreational Use Statute. The Plaintiffs maintain that the court should analyze their claims against West Feliciana using a 12(b)(6) standard without delving into the pleadings. In response, Red Frog argues that West Feliciana was improperly joined and entitled to statutory immunity, negating any duty under Louisiana law.
The removal standard dictates that a defendant can remove a civil action to federal court if original jurisdiction exists based on diversity of citizenship, requiring complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 at both the time of filing and removal. The removal statute must be strictly construed, favoring remand in cases of doubt.
Red Frog also discusses the forum defendant rule, which prevents removal if a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is brought. However, Red Frog claims West Feliciana was not served at the time of removal. Courts have held that the forum defendant rule applies only if the defendant was properly served when the removal occurred. The Plaintiffs do not reference this rule in their Motion to Remand, raising questions about Red Frog's mention of it in opposition.
Red Frog's argument to disregard the citizenship of an unserved, non-diverse defendant for jurisdictional purposes is counter to Fifth Circuit precedent, which states that non-diverse citizenship must be considered regardless of service status. A non-resident defendant cannot remove a case if a co-defendant's citizenship destroys complete diversity, which is assessed based on the parties’ citizenship, not their service status. Consequently, West Feliciana's citizenship remains relevant despite not being served at removal, and the court examines the validity of Plaintiffs’ joinder of West Feliciana.
In assessing improper joinder, the burden lies with the party seeking removal to demonstrate that the joinder was improper, either by showing actual fraud in jurisdictional pleadings or by proving the plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party. Red Frog has not claimed actual fraud, so only the second criterion is analyzed. The test for improper joinder requires showing no possibility of recovery against the in-state defendant, meaning there must be a reasonable basis for predicting potential recovery.
The court must favor the plaintiff when resolving factual disputes and ambiguities in state law. If any possibility of recovery exists against the questioned party, joinder is deemed proper, necessitating remand due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The possibility must be reasonable, not merely theoretical. The Fifth Circuit allows for a Rule 12(b)(6)-type analysis of the complaint to ascertain if it states a valid claim against the in-state defendant. If the plaintiff survives this challenge, improper joinder is usually not found. However, if the plaintiff has misstated key facts relevant to joinder, the court may conduct a summary inquiry to evaluate the propriety of the joinder, though it must avoid pretrial determinations of the case merits. Examples of improper joinder include clear evidence disproving the claims against the in-state defendant, but the court is cautioned against extensive pretrial fact-finding in removal jurisdiction considerations.
Plaintiffs allege that the West Feliciana Sports Complex, owned by The Parish of West Feliciana, hosted a 'WARRIOR DASH' race on October 8, 2016, featuring twelve man-made obstacles, including the Diesel Dome. They claim that the Dome collapsed while participants were climbing it, arguing that these obstacles should be classified as "playground equipment." Plaintiffs assert that West Feliciana had a duty to inspect and ensure the safety of this equipment, alleging negligence through various failures: 1) lack of awareness or reasonable care regarding defective equipment; 2) failure to inspect and ensure safety; 3) non-compliance with applicable codes; 4) failure to adhere to known engineering plans; 5) inadequate inspections; and 6) insufficient testing of the equipment.
Additionally, plaintiffs invoke Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317.1, holding defendants liable as owners or custodians of the defective Diesel Dome, which had a non-obvious defect. They argue that the defendants knew or should have known about the defect and failed to prevent harm. Under Louisiana negligence law, landowners, including municipalities operating public parks, are obligated to maintain a safe environment and address any dangerous conditions or provide warnings to users.
A governmental agency or municipality managing a public park or playground must exercise the same level of care for safety as any landowner. Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.1, the owner or custodian is liable for damages caused by defects only if they knew or should have known of the condition that led to the harm and failed to act with reasonable care to prevent it. Plaintiffs argue that the Dome qualifies as playground equipment, claiming West Feliciana was negligent for failing to recognize defects in it. They contend that the Parish, which provided the venue for the Warrior Dash, has a duty to ensure the safety of all playground equipment on its property and comply with relevant safety codes. Despite the potentially conclusory nature of these claims, they are deemed sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
In opposition, Red Frog asserts that while the Warrior Dash took place at the West Feliciana Sports Park, the Parish was not involved in its organization or the construction of obstacles. Red Frog entered a Venue Agreement allowing exclusive use of the park but did not grant the Parish authority to supervise or inspect the event or its obstacles. Red Frog references a declaration from an Event Director and the Venue Agreement itself to support its position. According to Louisiana law (La. R.S. 9:3221), a property owner is not liable for injuries caused by defects if the lessee is responsible for the property's condition, unless the owner had prior knowledge of the defect and failed to address it. It remains uncertain whether the Venue Agreement transfers complete responsibility for the park's condition to Red Frog, despite granting them exclusive use for the event while the Parish retains access rights during the event.
The Venue Agreement stipulates that Red Frog is responsible for providing labor and materials for constructing event obstacles, while the Venue must designate specific areas for this construction. Red Frog is required to add the Venue as an additional insured under its insurance policies. The agreement includes a mutual indemnification clause, wherein Red Frog indemnifies the Venue for claims arising from Red Frog's negligence or intentional misconduct, and vice versa for the Venue regarding its own negligence or intentional acts.
In the context of ongoing proceedings, the undersigned concludes that the Venue Agreement does not eliminate the possibility of the Plaintiffs recovering against the Parish. Red Frog bears a significant burden to prove improper joinder of West Feliciana, and the Fifth Circuit advises against preemptively determining removal jurisdiction. At this stage, the allegations made by the Plaintiffs are deemed sufficient to assert a claim against West Feliciana.
Additionally, Louisiana's Recreational Use Immunity statute (La R.S. 9:2795(B)) states that landowners allowing recreational use of their land are generally not liable for injuries, except in cases of willful or malicious failure to warn about dangerous conditions. The statute defines "land" broadly and outlines various recreational activities covered under its protections. Red Frog contends that the immunity statute applies because the Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Parish willfully or maliciously failed to warn of any defects associated with the Diesel Dome.
La. R.S. 9:2795(E)(2)(c) specifies that liability limitations for parks do not apply to defective playground equipment. Plaintiffs allege the Dome is "playground equipment," which Red Frog disputes without supporting evidence. The determination of whether the Dome qualifies for immunity under this statute requires a factual assessment, typically addressed in summary judgment, rather than a simple inquiry permissible in an improper joinder analysis. The allegations in the Plaintiffs' Petition are sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge regarding statutory immunity, indicating that the question of the Dome's classification is complex and not easily disproved. The court finds that Red Frog has not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility for recovery against West Feliciana, a non-diverse defendant, thereby supporting remand. The recommendation to grant the Motion to Remand is made, which would return the case to the 20th Judicial District Court in West Feliciana. The document also notes the Fifth Circuit's directive that motions to remand are subject to de novo review by the district court.
The plaintiff's claims against the lessor are insufficient due to a lack of connection to the premises and failure to establish a lessor/lessee relationship. The plaintiff did not adequately allege that the lessor retained responsibility for defects or had knowledge of such defects. The court found allegations of general knowledge of an unsafe condition to be conclusory and unaccepted. In contrast, the plaintiffs argued that West Feliciana had an obligation to inspect and test equipment during an event. Under Louisiana law, a lease requires mutual agreement on the property and rent terms. The Venue Agreement is governed by Illinois law, which mandates specific lease elements: property boundaries, lease term, rent amount, and payment terms. Red Frog's defense centers on the plaintiffs' failure to prove West Feliciana's knowledge of defects; however, Red Frog must demonstrate it assumed responsibility for the premises' condition under the Agreement. The Agreement grants Red Frog exclusive use of the property for specific activities, but it remains unclear whether all premises responsibility was transferred to Red Frog.
The Venue Agreement mandates that Red Frog must adhere to all applicable laws and regulations from various authorities regarding the maintenance and operation of the premises in relation to events. However, this provision does not exempt the Venue from its own compliance obligations with these laws. After an event, the Parish is required to conduct a walk-through with Red Frog to identify any damages exceeding normal wear and tear. Legal precedent illustrates instances where liability has been assigned based on control and responsibility for premises during events. Specifically, cases like Travis and St. Pierre emphasize the importance of control over the premises in determining liability, distinguishing between situations where the property owner retains control versus those where the event organizer has full control. Ms. Gaesor's affidavit claims that the Venue Agreement did not allow the Parish to supervise the event or conduct inspections, asserting that no Parish representative was present during the event. The court has been advised to evaluate the Venue Agreement directly rather than solely relying on interpretations presented in affidavits.
Red Frog contends that West Feliciana cannot be held liable for negligence regarding the Diesel Dome, asserting that the Parish had no ownership, custody, or control over the structure, similar to the precedent set in White v. Gulf States Utilities Co., where liability was denied due to lack of evidence of custody. The argument posits that the Parish's responsibility in relation to the Warrior Dash should be clarified through discovery, rather than being evaluated solely based on Ms. Gaesor's Declaration. The document highlights that Plaintiffs allege the Dome is simply playground equipment, and its intended use by individuals as young as ten years old is critical to its classification. The text also references Louisiana's recreational use immunity statute, La. R.S. 9:2795, noting that liability can persist for willful or malicious failure to warn of dangerous conditions, defective playground equipment, or grossly negligent acts by public entity employees. The summary indicates that the determination of the Parish's potential liability, particularly regarding the inspection and testing obligations for the Dome, remains a factual issue, unsuitable for resolution through an improper joinder analysis.
