## Facts

- Michael Travis died when his car was struck by a train at a Mississippi railroad crossing.
- The railroad owned the train; Arthur Irby, a Mississippi resident, was the train’s engineer.
- The decedent’s mother sued in Mississippi state court against the railroad (an out-of-state corporation), Irby, and unidentified railroad personnel.
- The complaint alleged negligence including failure to keep a proper lookout, failure to timely apply brakes, and failure to take proper precautions at a dangerous crossing, along with broader allegations about training and policies.
- After contentious discovery, the plaintiff supplemented interrogatory responses that did not identify specific evidence then establishing Irby’s individual negligence.
- Defendants removed to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction and claiming Irby (the non-diverse defendant) was fraudulently joined to defeat removal.

## Issues

1. Whether the removing defendants proved fraudulent joinder by showing no reasonable basis to predict the plaintiff could recover against the in-state engineer under Mississippi law.
2. Whether the district court improperly treated the plaintiff’s limited discovery responses as eliminating any possible claim against the engineer.
3. If diversity jurisdiction was absent, whether the federal court’s merits rulings (including summary judgment for the railroad) had to be vacated and the case remanded to state court.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held defendants failed to meet their heavy burden to establish fraudulent joinder of Irby.
- The court found a reasonable basis to predict Mississippi law could impose personal liability on a train engineer for operational negligence alleged in the complaint (e.g., lookout and braking).
- Because the plaintiff and Irby were both Mississippi citizens, complete diversity was lacking and removal was improper.
- The court vacated the district court’s orders (including denial of remand and summary judgment for the railroad) and remanded with instructions to return the case to Mississippi state court.

## Legal Principles

- The removing party bears a heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder by demonstrating no reasonable basis to predict the plaintiff might recover against the in-state defendant under applicable state law.
- Courts may evaluate fraudulent joinder through a Rule 12(b)(6)-type inquiry and, in limited circumstances, may consider summary-judgment-type evidence, but must resolve disputed facts and legal ambiguities in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The fraudulent-joinder inquiry tests possibility of recovery, not probability; a plaintiff’s early inability to specify evidence against an individual employee does not alone negate a viable state-law negligence claim.
- If a properly joined non-diverse defendant defeats complete diversity, the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must remand; merits rulings entered without jurisdiction must be vacated.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that allegations of operational negligence created a reasonable possibility of personal liability for the in-state engineer, defeating fraudulent joinder and eliminating diversity jurisdiction; as a result, the federal judgment was vacated and the case was returned to state court.


Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2003)