Hudson v. Grizzly Industrial, Inc.

Filing 24

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

CASEY HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:10cv914-MHT
(WO)

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
claims

against

Grizzly

Industrial.

The

state

court

severed Hudson’s workers’ compensation claim from his
tort claims.

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.

See 28

This lawsuit is now before the

court on Hudson's motion to amend his complaint to add a

defendant.

Hudson seeks to add Robert Crumpler as a

defendant.

As the court explained to the parties, if

Crumpler

is

added,

diversity-of-citizenship

will

be

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
diversity-destroying

defendant.

This

subsection

provides:
“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to
join additional defendants whose joinder
would
destroy
subject
matter
jurisdiction,
the
court
may
deny
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).

“[T]he court

should consider the extent to which the purpose of the
2

amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether
plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment,
whether

plaintiff

will

be

significantly

injured

if

amendment is not allowed, and any other factors bearing
on the equities.”

Id.

Applying the considerations articulated in Hensgens,
the court concludes that Crumpler should be added as a
defendant.

First, it appears that Hudson desires to

pursue a proper claim against Crumpler.

Hudson charges

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
not

learn

about

Crumpler’s

3

involvement

in

Hudson’s

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
Industrial

and

Crumpler

were

tried

by

the

same

factfinder.
***
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.
The

clerk

of

the

court

is

DIRECTED

appropriate steps to effect the remand.

to

take

This case is

closed in this court.
DONE, this the 12th day of April, 2011.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE