5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`ORANGEBURG DIVISION
`
`)
`FORREST E. CRIDER,
`)
`
`)
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`vs.
`)
`
`
`)
`PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION,
`)
`HOG SLAT INCORPORATED, AGFIRST
`)
`FARM CREDIT BANK, and AGSOUTH
`)
`FARM CREDIT ACA,
`)
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________)
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Defendant AgSouth Farm Credit ACA (“AgSouth”) files its Notice of Removal to remove
`
` CA No. 5:20-cv-02279-JMC
`
`
`
`this action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Orangeburg
`
`Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and the doctrine of fraudulent joinder.
`
`Plaintiff Forrest E. Crider originally filed this action in the First Judicial Circuit Court for Calhoun
`
`County, South Carolina, Case No. 2020-CP-09-00093, where the action is currently pending.
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a lawsuit filed by a chicken grower, Plaintiff Forrest E. Crider, complaining
`
`about chickens he never received from Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (“Pilgrim’s”) after
`
`entering into an alleged contract with Pilgrim’s “via letter of intent and oral agreements with”
`
`Pilgrim’s representatives “on June 8, 2018.” (See Complaint (“Compl.”) attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`(“Ex.”) A at ¶¶ 14, 21, 26-29, 31-34.)
`
`2.
`
`According to the Complaint, Pilgrim’s agreed to deliver poultry to Mr. Crider’s
`
`poultry farm if he “undertook various upgrades and repairs.” (Id. ¶ 14.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The Complaint alleges Mr. Crider hired Defendant Hog Slat Incorporated (“Hog
`
`Slat”) to “provide[] and install[] various materials and equipment at [Mr. Crider’s] poultry houses,”
`
`but Hog Slat’s work was allegedly improperly performed. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 19, 53-54.)
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Crider also alleges that Defendants AgSouth and AgFirst Farm Credit Bank
`
`(“AgFirst”) “withheld from [Mr. Crider] needed funds to make the repairs and upgrades to his
`
`poultry houses required by” Pilgrim’s. (Id. ¶ 20.)
`
`5.
`
`Nevertheless, Mr. Crider purportedly “completed [the] repairs and upgrades
`
`required by” Pilgrim’s, but Pilgrim’s supposedly refused to “provide [Mr. Crider] with birds
`
`pursuant to the existing contract and continued to unilaterally impose additional requirements for
`
`repairs, modifications, and upgrades not originally contemplated.” (Id. ¶ 21.)
`
`6.
`
`Mr. Crider also contends that Pilgrim’s told Mr. Crider that “it would provide birds
`
`to [Mr. Crider’s] poultry farm only if the farm was owned by someone other than [Mr. Crider].”
`
`(Id. ¶ 22.)
`
`7.
`
`Mr. Crider waited nearly two years after entering his alleged contract with Pilgrim’s
`
`to file this lawsuit. (See generally Compl.)
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Crider’s
`
`lawsuit alleges:
`
`(1) breach of contract and
`
`fraudulent
`
`misrepresentation causes of action against Pilgrim’s (Id. ¶¶ 25-37); (2) a tortious interference of
`
`contract claim against AgSouth and AgFirst (Id. ¶¶ 38-43); (3) allegations of a civil conspiracy
`
`among all four named defendants (Id. ¶¶ 44-51); (4) a negligence claim against Hog Slat (Id. ¶¶
`
`52-55); and (5) an unfair trade practices claim against all defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 56-63.)
`
`9.
`
`Based on his various theories of recovery, Mr. Crider seeks actual damages against
`
`each defendant exceeding “several hundred thousand dollars” (Id. ¶¶ 24, 29, 37, 43, 51, 55, and
`
`63), punitive damages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 12 (“Prayer”).)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`REMOVAL IS TIMELY
`
`10.
`
`On May 13, 2020, Mr. Crider filed a Complaint in the First Judicial Circuit Court
`
`for Calhoun County, South Carolina, styled Forrest E. Crider v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Hog
`
`Slat Incorporated, AgFirst Farm Credit Bank, and AgSouth Farm Credit ACA, Case No. 2020-
`
`CP-09-00093. (See generally Compl.)
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Service was made on Pilgrim’s and Hog Slat on May 18, 2020. (See Ex. A.)
`
`Service was made on AgFirst on May 19, 2020. (Id.)
`
`Service was made on AgSouth on May 22, 2020. (Id.)
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of the Complaint and all process and
`
`pleadings served upon the defendants are attached to this notice as Exhibit “A.”
`
`15.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice is filed within thirty (30) days of the
`
`date Pilgrim’s and Hog Slat were served with the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Pilgrim’s and Hog Slat consent to removal. (See Exhibit “B.”)
`
`AgFirst’s consent is immaterial because Mr. Crider fraudulently joined AgFirst, see
`
`Brantley v. Vaughan, 835 F. Supp. 258, 260 n.2 (D.S.C. 1993), but AgFirst consents to removal.
`
`(See id.)
`
`III. REMOVAL IS PROPER
`
`18.
`
`Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity exists
`
`between Mr. Crider and Defendants Pilgrim’s, Hog Slat and AgSouth, the amount-in-controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000.00, and because Mr. Crider fraudulently joined AgFirst as a defendant.
`
`Complete Diversity Exists and the Amount-in-Controversy Will Exceed $75,000.00.
`
`19. Mr. Crider is alleged to be a citizen of South Carolina. (Compl. ¶ 1.)
`
`3
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Pilgrim’s is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado.
`
`(Id. ¶ 2.)
`
`21.
`
`Hog Slat is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`North Carolina. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`
`22.
`
`AgSouth is “headquartered and domiciled in the State of Georgia,” and has its
`
`principal place of business in Georgia. (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`23.
`
`AgFirst is “headquartered and domiciled in the State of South Carolina” (id. ¶ 4),
`
`but the Court should disregard AgFirst’s citizenship for jurisdictional purposes because Mr. Crider
`
`fraudulently joined AgFirst. See Section III.B, infra.
`
`24.
`
`If liability is imposed and damages are awarded in this case (which is contested),
`
`Mr. Crider will seek damages exceeding $75,000.00.
`
`25.
`
`Although liability is disputed, the Complaint alleges:
`
`As a result of the Defendants’ actions, [Mr. Crider] has been damaged and has
`expended large sums of money to undertake repairs and upgrades in reliance on
`representations made by Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride and to address improper
`installation of materials and equipment by Defendant Hog Slat. Additionally,
`Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride’s breach of contract resulted in [Mr. Crider] being forced
`to sell his poultry farm for several hundred thousand dollars less than its true
`market value via a ‘fire sale’ due to financial distress brought about by Defendant
`Pilgrim’s Pride. Collusive actions by Defendants Pilgrim’s Pride, AgFirst Farm,
`and AgSouth placed [Mr. Crider] in a financial hardship and required him to include
`in the sale of his property equipment and land not originally provided as collateral
`for Plaintiff’s loans on the property. Further, actions by Defendants AgFirst and
`AgSouth played a material role in the breach of contract by Defendant Pilgrim’s.
`Finally, negligence by Defendant Hog Slat damaged [Mr. Crider] such that he was
`required to expend his own money to repair the faulty materials and equipment
`installed by Defendant Hog Slat. All Defendants’ actions violated this state’s
`Unfair Trade Practices Act.
`
`(Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added).)
`
`26. With respect to Mr. Crider’s Unfair Trade Practices Act claim pleaded against all
`
`defendants, Mr. Crider alleges he “has been damaged and has expended large sums of money to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`undertake repairs and upgrades to his poultry farms. Additionally, Defendants’ unfair trade
`
`practices have resulted in [Mr. Crider] being forced to sell his poultry farm for several hundred
`
`thousand dollars less than its true market value.” (Id. ¶ 63 (emphasis added).)
`
`27.
`
`Collectively, these allegations, standing alone, demonstrate that the amount-in-
`
`controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00.
`
`28.
`
`Further, Mr. Crider also requests exemplary and treble damages be awarded against
`
`each defendant. (See id. at Prayer.)
`
`29.
`
`Case law suggests that a request for punitive damages will generally satisfy the
`
`amount-in-controversy requirement because it cannot be stated to a legal certainty that the value
`
`of the plaintiff’s claim is below the statutory minimum. See, e.g., Golden v. Golden, 382 F.3d 348,
`
`354-355 (3d Cir. 2004).1
`
`30.
`
`Further, this Court, after making “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or
`
`other reasonable extrapolations,” should determine that it is facially apparent from the Complaint,
`
`by itself, that the case meets the $75,000.00 amount-in-controversy requirement. See, e.g., Roe v.
`
`Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza
`
`II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 770 (11th Cir. 2010)). Here, the Complaint seeks, among other things,
`
`hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages associated with Mr. Crider allegedly being forced to
`
`sell the poultry farm for an amount “less than its true market value” (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 29, 37, 43, 51,
`
`55, and 63), the expenditure of “large sums of money to undertake repairs and upgrades” to the
`
`poultry farm (Id.), the sale of “property items such as equipment and land that were not originally
`
`
`1 As noted in Smith v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., Civ. A. No. 08-05689, 2009 WL 1674615, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 11,
`2009), Golden was superseded on other grounds by Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006). Nevertheless, Golden
`has been cited in several subsequent decisions for the proposition that a request for punitive damages will generally
`satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See, e.g., Koerner
`v. Geico Cas. Co., No. 3:17-cv-455, 2017 WL 2180356, at *5 (M.D. Pa. 2017); Frump v. Claire’s Boutiques, Inc.,
`No. 10-1106-CV, 2011 WL 1103055, at * 4 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2011).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`offered or provided as collateral for [Mr. Crider’s] loan to construct his poultry houses” (Id. ¶ 51;
`
`see also id. ¶ 24), punitive damages (Id. at Prayer), and treble damages. (Id.) Collectively, the
`
`nature of Mr. Crider’s allegations combined are sufficient to show that the jurisdictional amount-
`
`in-controversy is satisfied. Id.; see also Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993);
`
`Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007); Roe, 613 F.3d at 1060-1063 (collecting
`
`cases).
`
`31.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Crider specifically seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00 from
`
`each defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 37, 43, 51, 55, and 63.)
`
`32.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Complaint alleges that the amount-in-controversy
`
`exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, the jurisdictional amount required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It does
`
`not appear to a legal certainty that the amount-in-controversy falls below the applicable
`
`jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00. See Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392,
`
`396-398 (3d Cir. 2004).
`
`B. Mr. Crider Fraudulently Joined AgFirst.
`
`33.
`
`The doctrine of fraudulent or wrongful joinder is an exception to the requirement
`
`that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 be predicated solely upon complete diversity. Mayes v.
`
`Rapoport, 198 F.3d 457, 461 (4th Cir. 1999).
`
`34.
`
`Under this doctrine, diverse defendants may remove an action if they can establish
`
`that the non-diverse defendant was “fraudulently” or wrongfully joined solely to defeat diversity
`
`jurisdiction. Id.
`
`35.
`
`Joinder is fraudulent if there is (1) “outright fraud in the plaintiff’s pleading of
`
`jurisdictional facts” or (2) “there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a
`
`cause of action against the in-state defendant in state court.” Toney v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`36 F. Supp. 3d 657, 663 (D.S.C. 2014) (citing Benjamin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d
`
`652, 654 (D.S.C. 2006)).
`
`36.
`
`In determining whether an attempted joinder is fraudulent, the Court is not bound
`
`by the allegations of the Complaint but can “‘consider the entire record, and determine the basis
`
`of joinder by any means available.’” Cnty. of Anderson v. Rite Aid of S. Carolina, Inc., No. 8:18-
`
`cv-1947, 2018 WL 8800188, at * 5 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2018) (quoting Mayes, 198 F.3d at 464).
`
`37.
`
`If this Court determines that Mr. Crider’s joinder of AgFirst is fraudulent, the Court
`
`can “disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of” the nondiverse AgFirst. Johnson v.
`
`Am. Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 704 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Mayes, 198 F.3d at 461).
`
`38.
`
`A defendant seeking to remove the action to federal court based on the fraudulent
`
`joinder doctrine must show that the plaintiff cannot establish a claim against the nondiverse
`
`defendant even after resolving all issues of fact and law in the plaintiff’s favor. Marshall v.
`
`Manville Sales Corp., 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993). The removing party bears a “heavy burden”
`
`when attempting to show fraudulent joinder. Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 574,
`
`578 (D.S.C. 2003).
`
`39.
`
`Despite the above being a heavy burden, this Notice of Removal will illustrate how
`
`there is no possibility that Mr. Crider would be able to establish a cause of action against AgFirst
`
`under South Carolina law due the lack of factual basis for Plaintiff’s allegations.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that “AgFirst and AgSouth played a material role in
`
`the breach of contract by Defendant Pilgrims.” (Id. ¶ 2.) It further alleges that “AgFirst and
`
`AgSouth,” as though they were one entity or affiliated entities, acted in concert in the actions pled
`
`in the complaint. There is absolutely no factual basis for Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`with regard to AgFirst, which did not participate and, given its role, could not have participated in
`
`the alleged activities.
`
`41.
`
`AgFirst Senior Corporate Counsel Adam Schanz has signed a declaration, included
`
`as Exhibit C to this Notice of Removal, supporting the averments in Paragraphs 41-45 and the
`
`allegations that AgFirst was fraudulently joined.
`
`42.
`
`AgFirst is a funding bank which means it provides funding to Farm Credit System
`
`Associations, including AgSouth. These Associations also receive certain services as part of this
`
`cooperative arrangement, including access to software used to support lending, business, security,
`
`and HR functions.
`
`43.
`
`As a funding bank, AgFirst provides funding to AgSouth to use according to its
`
`policies and procedures to make agricultural loans pursuant to Farm Credit Administration
`
`regulations.
`
`44.
`
`AgFirst does not direct AgSouth as to when, whether, or how much to lend to local
`
`poultry farmers, such as Mr. Crider.
`
`45.
`
`AgFirst had no influence on AgSouth’s determinations of whether or not to lend
`
`additional funds to Mr. Crider, directly or indirectly.
`
`46.
`
`AgFirst has no knowledge of, involvement in, or influence over AgSouth’s
`
`interactions with Mr. Crider. It has no knowledge of, involvement in, or influence over AgSouth’s
`
`evaluations of any loan application or servicing of Mr. Crider or his discussions and negotiations
`
`with Pilgrim’s Pride or Hog Slat.
`
`47.
`
`AgFirst has no involvement in or knowledge of the matters raised in Plaintiff’s
`
`complaint and is improperly named. The allegations of the Complaint with respect to AgFirst are
`
`not only false but have no basis in fact whatsoever and are, at best, made on misinformation.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`48.
`
`As shown above, the actions asserted against AgFirst cannot be established due to
`
`the impossibility of AgFirst’s alleged involvement given AgFirst’s role in the industry, AgFirst’s
`
`relationship with AgSouth, and AgFirst’s complete lack of relationship with the Plaintiff. The
`
`Plaintiff proffers no grounds on which to base the actions against AgFirst independent of the
`
`Plaintiff’s erroneous characterization of the relationship between AgFirst and AgSouth and
`
`AgFirst’s role in the industry.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`49.
`
`As demonstrated herein, the Court should disregard AgFirst’s citizenship under the
`
`doctrine of fraudulent joinder. AgFirst was not involved in the matters at issue in the Complaint,
`
`and therefore the allegations against AgFirst have no basis in fact and are fraudulently made for
`
`purposes of defeating diversity. After disregarding AgFirst’s citizenship as an improperly joined
`
`defendant, removal of this dispute to this Court is proper because this Court would have had
`
`original jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists because
`
`there is complete diversity of citizenship between Mr. Crider and the properly named defendants
`
`and the amount-in-controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
`
`costs.
`
`50. WHEREFORE, in accordance with the above, defendant AgSouth respectfully
`
`removes this action from the First Judicial Circuit Court for Calhoun County to this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`5:20-cv-02279-JMC Date Filed 06/16/20 Entry Number 1 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` s/ Sarah Sloan Batson
`Sarah Sloan Batson (Fed. Bar. No. 10849)
`NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
`55 East Camperdown Way
`Greenville, SC 29601
`Phone: 864.282-1113
`Email: sbatson@nexsenpruet.com
`
`Kyle A. Brannon (Fed. Bar. No 11509)
`NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
`1230 Main Street, Suite 700 (29201)
`Post Office Box 2426
`Columbia, South Carolina 29202
`Phone: (803) 540-2168
`Email: kbrannon@nexsenpruet.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AgSouth Farm Credit, ACA
`
`
`
`10
`
`June 16, 2020
`Greenville, South Carolina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`