Julia Blackwood v. Berry Dunn, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 2, 2020
• Docket: 19-2153
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2153

JULIA E. BLACKWOOD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BERRY, DUNN, MCNEIL & PARKER, LLC; NICOLE Y. BECNEL; JANE DOE(S),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:18-cv-01216)

Submitted: September 30, 2020 Decided: November 2, 2020

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Weikle, Tiffin, Ohio, for Appellant. Brian J. Moore, Kelsey Haught Parsons, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Julia E. Blackwood appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to remand

her case to state court. Finding no error, we affirm. *

We review de novo a district court’s order relating to the propriety of removal and

fraudulent joinder. Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2015).

Generally, complete diversity is necessary for a federal district court to exercise diversity

jurisdiction. Id. Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires (1) diversity

of state citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

However, the fraudulent joinder doctrine provides that diversity jurisdiction is not automatically defeated by naming non-diverse defendants. The district court can disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of certain nondiverse defendants. It can retain jurisdiction upon the non-moving party showing either that the plaintiff committed outright fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts, or that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against the in-state defendant in state court.

Weidman, 776 F.3d at 218 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Blackwood contends that she had a possibility of recovering against Nicole Becnel

on her severance pay, defamation, and invasion of privacy claims. We disagree.

Blackwood’s complaint is devoid of allegations that Becnel qualified as an officer or

manager under the West Virginia Wage Payment Act. See W. Va. Code § 21-5-1(a), (h).

* We ordered supplemental briefs to address whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude that we have jurisdiction. See Affinity Living Grp., LLC v. StarStone Specialty Ins. Co., 959 F.3d 634, 636-69 (4th Cir. 2020); Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d 354, 359 (4th Cir. 2013).

2 Similarly, Blackwood did not allege any specific defamatory statement that Becnel made

or how she was injured by such statements. See Greenfield v. Schmidt Baking Co., 485

S.E.2d 391, 399 (W. Va. 1997). Finally, Blackwood had no possibility of recovering

against Becnel on her invasion of privacy claim because she did not allege where the

photographs of her sleeping at work – the source of the alleged invasion – were taken. This

detail is critical because a reasonable person would expect their privacy to be limited in the

public areas of her workplace. See Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70, 83-

85 (W. Va. 1983).

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED