Bessinger v. Food Lion, LLC , 115 F. App'x 636 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1067
    MAURICE BESSINGER; PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    FOOD LION, LLC; BOBBY DALTON,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-1068
    MAURICE BESSINGER; PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    MIKE   GRAYBEAL;    WINN    DIXIE   CHARLOTTE,
    INCORPORATED,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 04-1069
    MAURICE BESSINGER; PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    SAM'S CLUB, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    CHARLIE GURISCO,
    Defendant.
    No. 04-1070
    MAURICE BESSINGER; PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    LARRY LOLLIS,
    Defendant.
    No. 04-1071
    MAURICE BESSINGER; PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES,
    INCORPORATED,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    -2-
    HARRIS TEETER, INCORPORATED; RANDY RASMUSSEN,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.     Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-2828-3-17; CA-03-2874-17-8; CA-03-2807-4-
    17; CA-03-2810-8-17; CA-03-3153-2-17)
    Argued:   September 30, 2004           Decided:   November 19, 2004
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion,
    in which Judge Widener and Judge Luttig joined.
    ARGUED: Glen Winston La Force, Sr., Hilton Head Island, South
    Carolina, for Appellants.      E. Raymond Moore, III, MURPHY &
    GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Cheryl Anne Falvey,
    AKINS, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for
    Appellees.   ON BRIEF: George H. McMaster, TOMPKINS & MCMASTER,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants.        Paul D. Harrill,
    Jonathan M. Milling, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees Del Haiz, America, Inc., and Bobby Dalton;
    Donald A. Cockrill, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.,
    Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,
    and Mike Graybeal; Jeffrey Parker Dunlaevy, OGLETREE, DEAKINS,
    NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, Jacob John
    Modla, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellees Harris Teeter, Inc., and Randy
    Rasmussen.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    -3-
    NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
    Maurice      Bessinger     and       his   business,       Piggie      Park
    Enterprises, Incorporated, which operates barbecue restaurants in
    South   Carolina      and     manufactures       barbecue    sauce     and   related
    products, commenced nine separate actions in South Carolina state
    court against food chain retailers that had ceased purchasing and
    offering for sale plaintiffs' barbecue products. In several of the
    actions, plaintiffs also sued individual store managers who carried
    out their stores' orders and removed plaintiffs' barbecue products
    from store shelves.         Each of the complaints purported to allege a
    violation    of   the    South    Carolina       Unfair     Trade    Practices     Act
    ("SCUTPA"),   
    S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10
        et   seq.,    based    on    the
    contention    that      the    defendants'       discontinuation       of    carrying
    plaintiffs' products was an unfair trade practice.
    The plaintiffs' complaints alleged that in July 2000,
    when the Confederate battle flag was lowered from the top of the
    South   Carolina     capitol     building,       Bessinger     began    flying      the
    Confederate battle flag at his restaurants.                   Within a month, an
    article appeared in The State newspaper that was extremely critical
    of Bessinger for flying the flag and for distributing religious
    literature at Bessinger's restaurants that the newspaper alleged to
    be controversial in nature. Following The State newspaper article,
    a series of news media stories appeared both in print and on radio
    and television "concerning [the media's] perception of Plaintiff
    -4-
    Bessinger's political and religious views with special emphasis on
    the     Confederate     Battle      Flag     controversy."         Following      this
    publicity,       defendants      removed    plaintiffs'    products       from    store
    shelves and discontinued selling their products. As the complaints
    alleged, "[t]he sole reason that Plaintiffs' products were removed
    by    the   Defendants      in    this     case   was   because    of     Plaintiff's
    individual political and religious views as expressed by him and
    publicized       in   the   media."         The   plaintiffs      claim    that    the
    defendants' retaliation against plaintiffs for their exercise of
    free speech was an unfair trade practice that violated SCUTPA. The
    plaintiffs demanded in the aggregate $45 million in compensatory
    damages, as well as treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys
    fees.
    In the five actions against Food Lion, Inc., Winn-Dixie,
    Inc., Sam's Club, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Harris Teeter,
    Inc., respectively, the defendants removed the cases to federal
    court based on diversity jurisdiction conferred by 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    and filed motions to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the Food Lion, Winn-Dixie, and Harris
    Teeter cases, the plaintiffs in turn moved to remand the cases to
    state    court    because     the   store    managers,    who     were    also   named
    defendants, were South Carolina citizens, thus destroying diversity
    of citizenship, the essential condition for diversity jurisdiction.
    -5-
    The district court denied the motions to remand and granted the
    defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
    Applying the "fraudulent joinder doctrine," see Mayes v.
    Rapoport, 
    198 F.3d 457
    , 461 (4th Cir. 1999); Marshall v. Manville
    Sales Corp., 
    6 F.3d 229
    , 232-33 (4th Cir. 1993), the district court
    disregarded the citizenship of the store managers because there was
    no possibility that the plaintiffs would be able to establish that
    the managers were liable under SCUTPA. The court observed that the
    managers "did not commit, participate in, direct or authorize the
    corporate decision to discontinue the plaintiffs' products."         With
    the managers' citizenship disregarded, the court concluded that it
    had jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
     and accordingly denied the
    plaintiffs' motion to remand.
    On the question of whether the plaintiffs' complaints
    stated a claim under SCUTPA upon which relief could be granted, the
    district court concluded (1) that the plaintiffs' allegations that
    the   defendants   discontinued   selling   plaintiffs'   products    in
    retaliation against plaintiffs' speech did not allege an "unfair
    act," as required by SCUTPA, and (2) that the defendants' alleged
    retaliation did not adversely affect members of the public, also as
    required by SCUTPA.     The district court reasoned that while the
    plaintiffs retained the right to speak out as they had done, the
    defendants retained the right to exercise their freedom not to sell
    plaintiffs' products.    In addition, the court concluded that the
    -6-
    exercise    of    these    rights    by   the   respective       parties    did    not
    adversely affect the public but rather benefited it.                 As the court
    explained,
    the vendor is free to express his views; the store is
    free not to do business with the vendor based on those
    views; and the customer is free not to patronize the
    store because it no longer sells the vendor's product.
    Such free market interaction benefits rather than harms
    the public interest.
    Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of the
    defendants in each of the five actions on November 24, 2003.                      From
    these judgments, the plaintiffs appealed.
    We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the
    arguments    of   the     parties'   counsel       in   their    briefs    and    oral
    arguments,   and    at    bottom,    we    agree    with   the   district    court.
    Accordingly, for the reasons given by the district court in its
    opinion filed in each of the five actions, see Bessinger et al. v.
    Food Lion, LLC et al., No. 03-CV-2828 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2003);
    Bessinger et al. v. Winn Dixie, Inc. et al., No. 03-CV-2874 (D.S.C.
    Nov. 20, 2003); Bessinger et al. v. Sam's Club, Inc. et al., No.
    03-CV-2807 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2003); Bessinger et al. v. Wal-Mart
    Stores, Inc. et al., No. 03-CV-2810 (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2003); and
    Bessinger et al. v. Harris Teeter, Inc. et al., No. 03-CV-3153
    (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2003), we affirm.
    AFFIRMED
    -7-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-1067 to 04-1071

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 636

Judges: Luttig, Niemeyer, Widener

Filed Date: 11/19/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023