Fletcher et al v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company et al

Filing 52

OPINION AND ORDER that the motion to amend 34 filed by plaintiffs administratrix of the estate of Frank Carter, Kwamika Fletcher, and Rosita Boyd is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DARLENE FLETCHER,
)
administratrix of the
)
estate of Frank Carter,
)
deceased; KWAMIKA FLETCHER, )
individually; ROSITA
)
BOYD, individually; and
)
SHERYL SMITH, administrator )
of the estate of Tara
)
Denita Sanders,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER
)
COMPANY, a foreign
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:13cv156-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Charging defendant Cooper Tire & Rubber Company with
manufacturing a defective tire that resulted in a one-car
accident, the plaintiffs (administratrix of the estate of
Frank

Carter,

Kwamika

Fletcher,

and

Rosita

Boyd)

initially filed this lawsuit in state court.1 Pursuant to
1.

There is an additional plaintiff in this case,
(continued...)

28 U.S.C. § 1441, Cooper Tire removed this lawsuit from
state to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The case is now before this

court on the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint
to add a defendant.
Tire

contend

negligently

installed the wrong-size tire on their car.

According to

the

Service,

They seek to add as a defendant King

plaintiffs,

which

King

they

Tire

now

Service

is,

like

them,

a

citizen of Alabama, with the result that, if King Tire
Service

is

added,

diversity-of-citizenship

will

be

destroyed and the case will be remanded to state court.2

1(...continued)
Sheryl Smith, administrator of the estate of Tara Denita
Sanders. She, however, has not joined the motion of the
other plaintiffs that is currently before the court.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are correct is unclear.
The plaintiffs refer to King Tire Service as “an Alabama
business entity” but do not specify whether it is a
corporation, partnership, limited-liability company, or
other form of organization. Pls.’ Mot. to Amend (Doc.
No. 34) at 2. The court cannot discern from the current
record whether King Tire Service is in fact, as the
plaintiffs contend, a citizen of Alabama.
2

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
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.

3

As for the first factor, the extent to which the
purpose

of

the

amendment

is

to

defeat

federal

jurisdiction, the circumstances of this case make it
apparent that that is precisely the purpose.

When the

plaintiffs first filed this case in state court, they
named as defendants both Cooper Tire, an out-of-state
defendant,

and

two

in-state

defendants,

thereby

attempting to defeat the ability of Cooper Tire to have
this case litigated in federal, rather than state, court.
See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806) (under the
rule of “complete diversity,” no plaintiff may be a
citizen of the same State as any defendant).

Cooper Tire

removed the case to this court anyway, arguing that the
plaintiffs

had

fraudulently

joined

the

two

in-state

defendants, that is, had sued them for the purpose of
defeating diversity jurisdiction and without any serious
intent in actually pursuing claims against them.

This

court agreed, finding that, even though the case had been
proceeding for approximately a year and was weeks away

4

from trial, the plaintiffs had essentially no admissible
evidence

to

defendants.

support

claims

against

the

in-state

Additionally, the court took particular

notice of the fact that one of the plaintiffs was not
even aware that her attorneys had caused her to sue
defendants other than Cooper Tire and all three could not
explain why they had.

The plaintiffs, in short, were

surprised and confused that they had sued the in-state
defendants.

Those circumstances and others made the

fraudulent joinder obvious.
Several weeks after this court found the plaintiffs
to have fraudulently joined in-state defendants for the
purposes

of

defeating

federal

jurisdiction,

the

plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its opinion and
order.3

A mere two days later, the plaintiffs filed the

motion now before the court, to add a new defendant to
this case who, apparently by mere happenstance, would
3.
Today the court is granting the motion to
reconsider to the extent that the court vacates the
initial opinion and order and issues new ones still
embodying substantially the same reasoning.
5

destroy this court’s diversity jurisdiction.

The timing

alone is arguably enough to find that the plaintiffs’
purpose is to defeat federal jurisdiction, but there is
more.
The

plaintiffs’

attorneys’

explanation

eleventh-hour amendment is not credible.

for

their

Their story is

as follows: The car accident at issue in this case
occurred in November 2011 and this lawsuit was filed in
March 2012.

Almost a year later, in February 2013,

during

Cooper

Tire’s

depositions

Cooper

Tire’s

attorney

asked

of

the

questions

plaintiffs,
relating

to

whether the tires on the car were the proper size for
that

particular

type

of

vehicle.

Hearing

those

questions, that was the first time it had occurred to the
plaintiffs’

attorneys,

experienced

personal-injury

lawyers who often litigate claims involving allegedly
defective

products,

that

whether

their

clients

were

properly using the tires would be an issue in this case.
Having

stumbled

unwittingly

6

upon

that

issue,

the

attorneys then set about researching whether the tires
were actually the right size for the car, and, upon
discovering that they were not, they then moved forthwith
to amend the complaint.

The issue of whether the tires

were used properly would be obvious to any attorney with
passing familiarity with products-defect law, especially
experienced counsel like the attorneys litigating this
case.

See, e.g., Atkins v. Am. Motors Corp., 335 So. 2d

134, 140 (Ala. 1976) (manufacturer can be held liable for
“placing a product on the market which will cause harm
when used according to its intended purpose”).

The

attorneys’ story is not believable on its face, and that
is true even when disregarding the fraudulent-joinder
decision that immediately preceded this motion.
Moreover, there are indications in the record that
the plaintiffs anticipated this issue long before they
say they did.

For one, in their initial state-court

complaint, they named as a fictitious defendant (which
Alabama

courts

allow)

“that

7

entity

...

which

...

installed ... [the] tire involved.”
1).

Compl. (Doc. No. 1-

“That entity” would be the same one the plaintiffs

now move to add as a defendant, contending that that
entity negligently installed tires of the wrong size.
Cooper

Tire’s

possibility

answer

that

the

to

the

complaint

plaintiffs

raised

“misuse[d]

...

the
the

products involved in this case.”

Answer (Doc. No. 1-9)

at

record

11.

These

conclusion

that

aspects
the

of

the

attorneys’

buttress

the

explanation

is

disingenuous.
The second factor for this court to consider is
whether the plaintiffs have been dilatory in asking for
amendment.

For the reasons that have been explained,

they have been.

The plaintiffs have shown no credible

reason why they could not have asserted this claim in
March 2012, over one year ago, when this lawsuit was
first filed.
The third factor is whether the plaintiffs will be
significantly injured if their desired amendment is not

8

allowed.

They will not be.

According to the plaintiffs,

the statute of limitations has not yet run on the new
claim.

Therefore, the plaintiffs still have ample time

to file a lawsuit asserting the claim in state court,
their desired forum.

The only injury the plaintiffs

assert is that litigating the two cases in separate
forums

concurrently

would

raise

however, is their own fault.

their

costs.

That,

No other injury has been

shown.
The final factor is whether there are any other
factors bearing on the equities.

The court finds none.

***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion to amend
(Doc. No. 34) filed by plaintiffs administratrix of the
estate of Frank Carter, Kwamika Fletcher, and Rosita Boyd
is denied.
DONE, this the 25th day of July, 2013.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE