From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roehrig v. Tong

United States District Court, D. Hawaii
Apr 3, 2006
Civil No. 05-00667 SPK/BMK (D. Haw. Apr. 3, 2006)

Summary

finding that an individual insurance agent could not be individually liable when the principal "has assumed or ratified responsibility for her acts, and she was at all times acting within the proper scope of her employment"

Summary of this case from McClelland v. Merck Co.

Opinion

Civil No. 05-00667 SPK/BMK.

April 3, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR REMAND


Plaintiffs have filed objections pursuant to LR 74.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to the February 8, 2006, Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren to Deny Plaintiffs' Motions for Remand. Having reviewed the objections and responses under a de novo standard of review, the Court OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation. The Motions to Remand are DENIED.

The law regarding fraudulent joinder is well-settled. The citizenship of a "fraudulently joined" defendant is ignored for purposes of determining diversity of citizenship. Fraudulent joinder is a term of art; if, according to the law of the forum state, a claim for personal liability is not possible and the failure to state a claim is obvious according to the settled law, then the joinder is "fraudulent." Joinder of such a defendant may not destroy diversity of citizenship to prevent removal. See, e.g., Morris v. Princess Cruises, 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001); McCabe v. General Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1987).

Upon review of the complaint and papers submitted, the Court agrees with Judge Kurren that Blossom Tong cannot be personally liable for the allegations in the complaint. The company (Seabury Smith) has assumed or ratified responsibility for her acts, and she was at all times acting within the proper scope of her employment with the company. Under these circumstances, as an individual insurance agent, she cannot be individually liable.See, e.g., Moore v. Allstate, 6 Haw. App. 646, 736 P.2d 73 (1987). Ignoring her citizenship, diversity exists.

The Findings and Recommendation are ADOPTED. The Motions to Remand are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Roehrig v. Tong

United States District Court, D. Hawaii
Apr 3, 2006
Civil No. 05-00667 SPK/BMK (D. Haw. Apr. 3, 2006)

finding that an individual insurance agent could not be individually liable when the principal "has assumed or ratified responsibility for her acts, and she was at all times acting within the proper scope of her employment"

Summary of this case from McClelland v. Merck Co.
Case details for

Roehrig v. Tong

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY ROEHRIG, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BLOSSOM TONG, ET AL., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Hawaii

Date published: Apr 3, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 05-00667 SPK/BMK (D. Haw. Apr. 3, 2006)

Citing Cases

McClelland v. Merck Co.

Merck's principal argument is that the Employee Defendants cannot be held individually liable for any of the…

Casey v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc.

Rather, fraudulent joinder occurs "[i]f the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident…