Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held a defendant’s removal of a lawsuit to federal court was improper where it was apparent from the plaintiffs’ original complaint that a co-defendant had been joined improperly.

Here, several Texas citizens who were injured in an automobile collision involving a sudden tire detread sued Michelin North America, Inc., alleging that its tire was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous and that the company negligently failed to warn the public about the dangers of tread loss associated with its product. The plaintiffs also alleged that purported salesperson Juan Guajardo, also a Texas citizen, had negligently sold the tire at issue and was liable for failing to recognize the tire’s defects.

The defendant removed the case to federal court approximately seven months after the plaintiffs filed their original petition. The defendant argued that although the plaintiffs’ complaint seemed to state a valid claim against Guajardo, one of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not recall who had sold her the vehicle involved in the collision indicated for the first time that there was no valid cause of action against this co-defendant. Consequently, the defendant said, Guajardo had been joined improperly and there was no longer a basis to support diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs moved to remand.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that a defendant who wishes to remove a case to federal court must do so within 30 days after receiving a copy of the initial pleadings. Citing case law, the court also noted that to show improper joinder, the party seeking removal must demonstrate there is no reasonable basis to predict a plaintiff’s recovery against the in-state defendant. Here, the court said, the plaintiffs’ complaint shows the improper joinder of Guajardo. The claims against him constitute a products liability action, which is defined as an action against a manufacturer or seller of a product, the court said, but Guajardo is not a manufacturer of the allegedly defective tire at issue. Further, the court found that Texas law protects nonmanufacturing product sellers from liability for injuries resulting from defective products unless the seller actually knew of the alleged defect when the product was sold. The plaintiffs alleged that Guajardo should have known of the tire’s alleged defects, not that he had actual knowledge of those defects, the court found.

Thus, the court concluded that because the plaintiffs’ petition shows no reasonable likelihood of recovery against Guajardo, the 30-day timeline for removal began when the defendant was served the original complaint. Consequently, the court remanded.

Citation: Patlan v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 2267046 (W.D. Tex. May 28, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: Richard R. Sahadi, Corpus Christi, Texas.