## Facts

- Lawrence Hill, an 81-year-old Mississippi resident with Alzheimer’s dementia, was admitted on September 17, 2002 to Beverly Healthcare–Northwest, a nursing-home facility in Jackson, Mississippi owned and operated by Beverly Enterprises–Mississippi, Inc. and related corporate entities (collectively, Beverly).
- Through his next friends, Hill filed suit in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged “catastrophic injuries, disfigurement, extreme pain, suffering and mental anguish” suffered while in the facility’s care.
- Hill sued both the corporate nursing-home entities and three individuals: Alicha D. Lindsay (the facility administrator) and James C. Landers and David Devereaux (the facility’s licensees), along with unnamed John Doe defendants.
- The complaint alleged that Lindsay and the licensees were responsible for managing and supervising the facility and that they failed to properly hire, supervise, and train nursing personnel and failed to see that adequate records were prepared and maintained.
- Defendants removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, asserting the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the Mississippi individual defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity.
- Hill moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing his negligence and/or gross-negligence claims against Lindsay and the licensees were at least potentially viable under Mississippi law, including under a direct-participation theory of individual liability.
- Defendants opposed remand, arguing Hill had not alleged the type of direct personal involvement necessary for individual liability because the complaint did not allege personal contact between Lindsay or the licensees and Hill (or the staff who allegedly caused the injuries).

## Issues

1. Did defendants show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded $75,000, despite the complaint’s lack of a specific damages figure?
2. Were the administrator and licensees fraudulently joined, such that there was no reasonable basis to predict Hill could recover against them under Mississippi law and their citizenship could be ignored for diversity purposes?

## Decision

- The court granted Hill’s motion to remand.
- The court found the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied based on the nature of the injuries alleged and the categories of damages sought.
- The court held defendants failed to meet the heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder of the in-state administrator and licensees.
- Hill’s allegations that Lindsay and the licensees negligently managed and supervised the facility (including staffing, training, supervision, and recordkeeping) supplied a reasonable basis to predict possible individual liability under Mississippi law at the pleading stage.
- Because the resident defendants were not fraudulently joined, complete diversity was absent and the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; the case was remanded to Mississippi state court.

## Legal Principles

- A removing defendant must establish federal jurisdiction; doubts about removal jurisdiction are resolved against removal and in favor of remand.
- When the complaint does not demand a specific amount, the removing party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
- Fraudulent joinder is established only if there is no reasonable basis to predict the plaintiff might recover against the in-state defendant under state law.
- In assessing fraudulent joinder, the court does not decide the merits; it asks whether the claim is possible under state law based on the pleadings (and, when appropriate, limited evidence).
- Under Mississippi law, individuals connected to a corporation (including those in management roles) may face personal liability for their own tortious conduct; allegations of negligent management and supervision connected to the plaintiff’s injury can be enough to defeat a fraudulent-joinder claim at the remand stage.

## Conclusion

The district court remanded Hill’s nursing-home personal-injury action to Mississippi state court because, although the alleged damages placed more than $75,000 in controversy, defendants did not show fraudulent joinder: Hill’s pleadings stated at least a reasonable possibility of negligence liability against the Mississippi administrator and licensees based on their alleged management and supervisory failures, which destroyed complete diversity.


Hill v. Beverly Enterprises-Mississippi, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 644 (2003)