Case: 18-10289 Document: 00514990097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 10, 2019 No. 18-10289 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LINDSEY HOYT, Individually, and Independently as Administrator of the Estate of Jeffery Hoyt and as Next Friend of Joel Hoyt, Evan Hoyt, and Katie Hoyt; PATRICK HOYT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before JONES, HAYNES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the district court erred by refusing to remand this case to state court. It did not. Next, we must decide whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendant. It did. I. On December 29, 2015, Jeffery Hoyt hit a patch of ice while driving on FM 2264 in Wise County, Texas. Jeffery slid off the road. His car landed upside down in an adjacent body of water. Tragically, Jeffery drowned. Less than an hour later, a second driver hit the same patch of ice. The second driver Case: 18-10289 Document: 00514990097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2019 No. 18-10289 likewise slid off the road. And the second driver landed directly on top of Jeffery’s submerged vehicle. That apparently saved the second driver from drowning. First responders rescued him and, in the process, discovered Jeffery’s vehicle and body. On September 20, 2016, members of Jeffery’s family (“the Hoyts”) filed suit in Texas state court. They sued C.E.N. Concrete Construction Co., Storm Water Management, Inc., and the Lane Construction Corporation. The Hoyts, C.E.N., and Storm are citizens of Texas. Lane is not. The Hoyts contended all three companies had performed construction work on FM 2264 and caused ice to form at the crash site. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The state district court granted C.E.N.’s motion and entered a “take nothing” judgment in its favor. The Hoyts and Storm engaged in settlement discussions. They never reached agreement. Yet on September 22, 2017—one year and two days after the suit began—the Hoyts voluntarily dismissed their claims against Storm. The Hoyts received no compensation from Storm. Five days later, Lane removed the case to federal court on the theory that it now fit within federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (requiring “complete diversity”). The next day, the Hoyts filed an emergency motion to remand. They argued Lane’s notice of removal was untimely. The federal district court denied that motion. In a second motion to remand filed about a month later, the Hoyts argued the voluntary-involuntary rule prohibited removal because C.E.N. had been dismissed against their wishes. The district court denied that motion too. Lane moved for summary judgment on the Hoyts’ claims for premises liability and gross negligence. The federal district court granted the motion. 2 Case: 18-10289 Document: 00514990097 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2019 No. 18-10289 It ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals