Hudson v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER: it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Plf Casey Hudson's 15 Motion to Amend his Complaint is granted; (2) This lawsuit is remanded to the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Alabama; DIRECTING the clerk to take appropriate steps to effect the remand. This case is closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/12/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION
GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Casey Hudson charged that he sustained
injuries from a saw manufactured by defendant Grizzly
Industrial, Inc. and asserted, in state court, a workers’
compensation claim against his employer as well as tort
severed Hudson’s workers’ compensation claim from his
Grizzly Industrial then removed this case,
involving the tort claims, from state to federal court
based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.
U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.
This lawsuit is now before the
court on Hudson's motion to amend his complaint to add a
Hudson seeks to add Robert Crumpler as a
As the court explained to the parties, if
destroyed because Hudson and Crumpler are both citizens
of Alabama, meaning that the case will be remanded back
to state court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a district court has
discretion in deciding whether to permit joinder of a
“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to
join additional defendants whose joinder
joinder, or permit joinder and remand
the action to State court.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
In determining whether joinder is appropriate under
§ 1447(e), the court balances the equities involved.
Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851 (1989).
should consider the extent to which the purpose of the
amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether
plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment,
amendment is not allowed, and any other factors bearing
on the equities.”
Applying the considerations articulated in Hensgens,
the court concludes that Crumpler should be added as a
First, it appears that Hudson desires to
pursue a proper claim against Crumpler.
that Crumpler was a supervisory employee at his place of
employment at the time of his injury; that Crumpler owed
Hudson a duty to make certain that the saw’s two guards
were installed appropriately so as to prevent a serious
injury; that Crumpler also had a duty to provide Hudson
with a safe place to work; and that Hudson breached these
duties by removing or by failing to install one or both
of the saw’s guards.
Second, counsel for Hudson represents that they did
injuries until about a month ago.
Thus, while it is true
that Hudson waited about eight months before seeking to
amend his complaint, he has not been dilatory.
Third and finally, it would also be in the best
interest of all parties if the claims against Grizzly
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of
the court as follows:
(1) Plaintiff Casey Hudson’s motion to amend his
complaint (doc. no. 15) is granted.
(2) This lawsuit is remanded to the Circuit Court of
Coffee County, Alabama.
appropriate steps to effect the remand.
This case is
closed in this court.
DONE, this the 12th day of April, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?