Smith v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC

Filing 60

ORDER entered granting 36 Motion for Leave to File amended complaint. The proposed first amended complaint is deemed filed upon entry of this Order. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), this action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Mobile County Alabama. Smith's motion to remanded is MOOT. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/21/2014. (mcb)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT

FOR
 THE
 SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

THOMAS
 C.
 SMITH,
 SR.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)
  CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.
 14-­‐0060-­‐KD-­‐B

)

WINN-­‐DIXIE
 MONTGOMERY,
 LLC,
 and

)

GEORGE
 R.
 BATISTE,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

This
 action
 is
 before
 the
 Court
 on
 plaintiff
 Thomas
 C.
 Smith,
 Sr.’s
 Motion
 for

Leave
 of
 Court
 to
 File
 First
 Amended
 Complaint
 (doc.
 36)
 and
 Motion
 to
 Remand
 (doc.

37),
 the
 responses
 filed
 by
 defendants
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 Montgomery,
 LLC
 and
 George
 R.

Batiste
 (Defendants)
 (docs.
 39,
 40)
 and
 Smith’s
 replies
 (docs.
 43,
 44).

 Upon

consideration,
 the
 motion
 for
 leave
 to
 file
 the
 First
 Amended
 Complaint
 is
 GRANTED

and
 the
 proposed
 First
 Amended
 Complaint
 is
 deemed
 filed
 upon
 entry
 of
 this
 order.

Accordingly,
 pursuant
 to
 28
 U.S.C.
 §
 1447(e),
 this
 action
 is
 remanded
 to
 the
 Circuit

Court
 of
 Mobile
 County,
 Alabama.

 Smith’s
 motion
 to
 remand
 is
 MOOT.

Plaintiff
 Thomas
 C.
 Smith,
 Sr.
 brought
 this
 action
 for
 negligence
 and
 wantonness

against
 the
 Defendants
 in
 the
 Circuit
 Court
 of
 Mobile
 County,
 Alabama.

 Smith
 alleges

that
 Defendants
 miss-­‐filled
 his
 prescription
 for
 100
 ml
 of
 Humulin
 R,
 a
 synthetic
 form
 of

Insulin,
 with
 500
 ml
 of
 Humulin
 R.

 On
 March
 19,
 2013,
 Smith
 injected
 himself
 at
 work

and
 his
 blood
 sugar
 level
 dropped
 substantially
 while
 he
 was
 driving
 home.

 Smith’s

inappropriate
 driving
 was
 reported
 to
 the
 Mobile
 County
 Sheriff’s
 Department
 and
 a

1

Deputy
 Sheriff
 pulled
 him
 over.

 Smith’s
 behavior
 was
 erratic
 and
 fluctuated
 between

calm
 and
 aggressive.

 The
 Deputy
 Sheriff
 put
 handcuffs
 on
 Smith
 who
 injured
 his
 wrists

while
 struggling
 against
 the
 cuffs.

 Paramedics
 arrived
 and
 stabilized
 Smith’s
 blood

sugar
 level.

 He
 was
 transported
 to
 the
 University
 of
 South
 Alabama
 Medical
 Center

where
 he
 was
 hospitalized
 for
 treatment.
 (Doc.1-­‐1,
 Complaint)

Smith
 filed
 his
 Complaint
 against
 the
 Defendants
 on
 January
 16,
 2014.
 (Doc.1-­‐1)

Defendants
 removed
 the
 action
 to
 this
 Court
 on
 February
 14,
 2014
 (doc.
 1).

 The
 Rule

16(b)
 Scheduling
 Order
 was
 entered
 on
 March
 12,
 2014
 (doc.
 11)
 and
 discovery

commenced.
 On
 June
 6,
 2014,
 the
 deadline
 for
 amendments
 to
 pleadings,
 Smith
 filed
 his

motion
 for
 leave
 to
 amend
 his
 Complaint
 to
 add
 Joanie
 Bosarge
 as
 a
 defendant
 (doc.
 36).

Smith
 alleges
 that
 even
 though
 he
 had
 a
 cash
 register
 receipt
 for
 the
 Humulin
 R
 which

showed
 the
 Cashier
 as
 Joan____,
 he
 found
 out
 at
 a
 deposition
 on
 May
 21,
 2014
 that

Joan___
 ,
 was
 Joanie
 Bosarge
 a
 former
 Pharmacy
 Technician
 for
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 who
 may

have
 been
 involved
 in
 processing
 his
 prescription.

 Defendants
 object
 to
 the
 motion.

Rule
 15(a)(2)
 of
 the
 Federal
 Rules
 of
 Civil
 Procedure
 provides
 that
 the
 “court

should
 freely
 give
 leave
 [to
 amend]
 when
 justice
 so
 requires.”

 Relevant
 to
 this
 removed

action
 28
 U.S.C.
 §
 1447(e),
 provides
 as
 follows:

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).

The
 statute
 vests
 discretion
 in
 the
 district
 court
 to
 determine
 whether
 joinder
 of

a
 defendant
 who
 destroys
 diversity
 jurisdiction
 is
 appropriate.

 “[W]hen
 faced
 with
 an

amended
 pleading
 naming
 a
 new
 nondiverse
 defendant
 in
 a
 removed
 case,”
 the
 court

2

“should
 scrutinize
 that
 amendment
 more
 closely
 than
 an
 ordinary
 amendment.”

Hensgens
 v.
 Deere
 &
 Co.,
 833
 F.2d
 1179,
 1182
 (5th
 Cir.
 1987).

 To
 do
 so,
 the
 district
 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.

 These
 factors
 serve
 to
 balance
 the
 Defendants’
 “interest
 in

retaining
 the
 federal
 forum”
 with
 the
 “danger
 of
 parallel
 federal/state
 proceedings
 with

the
 inherent
 dangers
 of
 inconsistent
 results
 and
 the
 waste
 of
 judicial
 resources.”
 Id.

The
 first
 factor
 weighs
 in
 favor
 of
 granting
 the
 motion.

 The
 evidence
 before
 the

Court
 does
 not
 indicate
 that
 Smith’s
 purpose
 is
 to
 defeat
 federal
 jurisdiction.
 Smith

intended
 to
 sue
 other
 persons
 such
 as
 pharmacists
 or
 technicians
 involved
 in

processing
 his
 prescription
 as
 evidenced
 by
 the
 style
 of
 his
 original
 complaint
 and
 the

discovery
 served
 with
 his
 original
 complaint
 wherein
 he
 sought
 the
 name,
 address
 and

job
 title
 of
 the
 persons
 responsible
 for
 filling
 his
 prescription.

 Smith
 has
 shown
 that

had
 this
 action
 not
 been
 removed,
 he
 would
 have
 amended
 his
 complaint
 to
 add
 such

other
 persons
 involved
 in
 processing
 his
 prescription
 when
 their
 identities
 were
 made

known
 through
 discovery.

 Strongly
 in
 Smith’s
 favor
 is
 the
 fact
 that
 he
 did
 not
 seek
 leave

to
 amend
 to
 add
 Joan___
 as
 a
 defendant,
 until
 he
 discovered
 that
 she
 was
 a
 Pharmacy

Technician
 (doc.
 36,
 Exhibit
 9,
 License)
 and
 a
 person
 who
 may
 have
 processed
 the

prescription
 at
 issue.

 See
 Ibis
 Villas
 at
 Miami
 Gardens
 Condo
 Ass'n,
 Inc.
 v.
 Aspen

Speciality
 Ins.
 Co.,
 799
 F.Supp.2d
 1333,
 1335
 (S.D.Fla.2011)
 (moving
 to
 add
 a
 non-­‐
diverse
 defendant
 immediately
 after
 removal
 and
 before
 discovery
 indicates
 that
 the

motion
 was
 made
 with
 the
 “specific
 purpose
 of
 destroying
 diversity
 jurisdiction.”)

3

Smith
 has
 not
 been
 dilatory
 in
 asking
 for
 amendment,
 and
 therefore,
 the
 second

factor
 weighs
 in
 favor
 of
 granting
 the
 motion.

 The
 motion
 was
 filed
 on
 June
 6,
 2014,
 the

deadline
 for
 amendment
 of
 pleadings
 as
 set
 forth
 in
 the
 Rule
 16(b)
 Scheduling
 Order,

and
 approximately
 three
 weeks
 after
 the
 deposition
 of
 the
 Pharmacy
 Supervisor
 who

identified
 Joan
 ____
 as
 a
 Pharmacy
 Technician.

 Prior
 to
 that
 time,
 the
 information
 in

Smith’s
 possession
 indicated
 that
 Joan
 ___
 was
 a
 cashier.

 Also,
 as
 set
 forth
 above,
 Smith

sought
 discovery
 of
 the
 persons
 involved
 in
 filling
 his
 prescription
 when
 he
 filed
 his

original
 complaint.
 He
 also
 conducted
 discovery
 on
 this
 issue
 after
 removal
 despite
 the

delays
 incurred.

 On
 June
 5,
 2014,
 the
 eve
 of
 the
 deadline
 to
 move
 for
 leave
 to
 amend,

Winn-­‐Dixie
 responded
 to
 Smith’s
 discovery
 requests
 and
 identified
 Joanie
 Bosarge

among
 the
 pharmacy
 employees
 working
 in
 the
 pharmacy
 on
 March
 6,
 2013
 (doc.
 36,
 p.

4;
 doc.
 43-­‐2,
 p.
 4).

The
 third
 factor
 weighs
 in
 favor
 of
 allowing
 the
 amendment.
 In
 deciding
 whether

Smith
 would
 be
 significantly
 injured,
 the
 Court
 may
 look
 to
 whether
 he
 can
 be
 afforded

complete
 relief
 in
 the
 absence
 of
 the
 amendment.

 Holiday
 Isle,
 LLC
 v.
 Clarion
 Mortgage

Capital,
 Inc.,
 2008
 WL
 1756369,
 *3
 (S.D.
 Ala.
 Apr.
 11,
 2008).

 In
 that
 regard,
 Defendants

argue
 that
 Smith
 could
 obtain
 complete
 relief
 in
 this
 action
 because
 Batiste
 is
 jointly

responsible
 and
 liable
 under
 Alabama
 law1
 for
 the
 acts
 or
 omissions
 of
 Bosarge
 or
 other

1
 Ala.
 Code
 §
 34-­‐23-­‐131
 (“(a)
 A
 pharmacy
 technician
 shall
 not
 perform
 pharmacy

functions
 or
 be
 present
 in
 the
 prescription
 department
 of
 a
 pharmacy
 unless
 he
 or
 she

is
 under
 the
 direct
 supervision
 of
 a
 licensed
 pharmacist.

 A
 pharmacy
 technician
 shall

not
 perform
 pharmacy
 functions
 or
 be
 present
 in
 the
 prescription
 department
 of
 a

pharmacy
 unless
 he
 or
 she
 is
 registered
 by
 the
 board.
 (b)
 When
 supervision
 is
 required,

a
 licensed
 pharmacist
 shall
 be
 jointly
 responsible
 and
 liable
 for
 the
 actions
 of
 a

pharmacy
 technician.
 .
 .
 .
 ”)

4

pharmacy
 technicians
 he
 supervises
 and
 because
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 is
 liable
 under
 the

doctrine
 of
 respondeat
 superior
 for
 the
 act
 or
 omissions
 of
 both
 Batiste
 and
 Bosarge.

However,
 as
 Smith
 points
 out,
 Defendants
 answered
 and
 denied
 that
 Batiste
 was
 acting

in
 the
 line
 and
 scope
 of
 his
 employment
 at
 the
 time
 the
 prescription
 was
 filled
 (doc.
 2,
 at

¶
 9).
 He
 also
 points
 out
 that
 success
 against
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 under
 the
 doctrine
 of

respondeat
 superior
 is
 not
 guaranteed.

 Thus,
 Smith
 could
 be
 afforded
 complete
 relief
 if

Bosarge,
 Batiste,
 and
 their
 employer
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 are
 joined
 as
 defendants
 in
 a
 single

action
 and
 Smith
 allowed
 to
 pursue
 any
 applicable
 individual
 claims
 against
 Bosarge

and
 Batiste,
 should
 it
 be
 found
 that
 Batiste,
 who
 is
 responsible
 for
 supervising
 Bosarge

when
 performing
 pharmacy
 functions,
 was
 not
 acting
 within
 the
 line
 and
 scope
 of
 his

employment
 when
 the
 miss-­‐filling
 of
 the
 prescription
 occurred.

Defendants
 cite
 to
 Linares
 v.
 Home
 Deport,
 USA,
 Inc.,
 2012
 WL
 1441577,
 *3
 (S.
 D.

Fla.
 Apr.
 26,
 2012)
 for
 their
 argument
 that
 it
 is
 unlikely
 that
 Smith
 would
 pursue
 a
 state

court
 action
 against
 Bosarge
 if
 not
 allowed
 to
 join
 her
 in
 this
 action.

 However,
 Smith

has
 indicated
 his
 intent
 to
 file
 suit
 against
 Bosarge
 in
 the
 state
 court
 should
 this

amendment
 not
 be
 allowed.

 Thus,
 the
 likelihood
 that
 he
 will
 pursue
 his
 claim
 against

Bosarge
 is
 not
 remote.

 Moreover,
 Bosarge
 as
 a
 licensed
 Pharmacy
 Technician
 who
 is

required
 by
 statute
 and
 administrative
 regulation
 to
 be
 supervised
 by
 Batiste
 when

performing
 pharmacy
 functions
 is
 not
 in
 the
 same
 posture
 as
 the
 named
 defendant
 in

Linares
 who
 was
 alleged
 in
 the
 proposed
 amended
 complaint
 to
 have
 negligently

maintained
 the
 store
 and
 failed
 to
 train
 employees.

“Pharmacy
 Functions”
 are
 defined
 as
 “Those
 functions
 performed
 in
 a
 pharmacy

department
 which
 do
 not
 require
 the
 professional
 judgment
 of
 a
 licensed
 pharmacist.”

Ala.
 Code
 §
 34-­‐23-­‐130(1).

5

Other
 factors
 bearing
 on
 the
 equities
 weigh
 in
 favor
 of
 allowing
 Smith’s
 motion

for
 leave
 to
 amend.

 Smith
 convincingly
 explains
 that
 he
 has
 tried
 to
 learn
 the
 identities

of
 the
 pharmacists
 and
 technicians
 allegedly
 responsible
 for
 miss-­‐filling
 his
 prescription

since
 the
 inception
 of
 his
 lawsuit
 and
 that
 had
 he
 known
 about
 Bosarge,
 she
 would
 have

been
 included
 in
 the
 lawsuit
 from
 the
 beginning.

 Despite
 Winn-­‐Dixie’s
 disclosure
 on

June
 5,
 2014,
 of
 the
 names
 of
 the
 pharmacy
 employees
 working
 March
 6,
 2013
 when

Smith’s
 prescription
 was
 filled,2
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 still
 has
 not
 produced
 the
 incident
 report,
 3

which
 likely
 would
 identify
 the
 persons
 involved
 in
 processing
 the
 prescription.

Moreover,
 on
 June
 5,
 2014,
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 provided
 its
 responses
 to
 Smith’s
 request
 for

supplemental
 responses
 wherein
 it
 states
 that
 it
 “has
 not
 determined
 which
 employee

re-­‐filled
 Plaintiff’s
 Humulin
 R
 100
 prescription
 on
 March
 6,
 2013”
 and
 that
 it
 “continues

to
 research
 and
 investigate
 the
 subject
 refill
 in
 order
 to
 determine
 which
 pharmacy

employee
 re-­‐filled”
 the
 prescription
 (doc.
 43-­‐2,
 p.
 3).

In
 conclusion,
 weighing
 the
 Defendants’
 “interest
 in
 retaining
 the
 federal
 forum”

with
 the
 “danger
 of
 parallel
 federal/state
 proceedings
 with
 the
 inherent
 dangers
 of

inconsistent
 results
 and
 the
 waste
 of
 judicial
 resources[.]”
 Hensgens,
 at
 1182,
 Smith’s

motion
 for
 leave
 to
 amend
 is
 due
 to
 be
 granted.

 Smith
 timely
 moved
 for
 leave
 to
 amend

2
 (Doc.
 36,
 Exhibit
 11)

3
 Smith
 provides
 the
 Court
 with
 a
 copy
 of
 his
 demand
 letter
 dated
 July
 24,
 2013
 (doc.

43-­‐4).

 In
 the
 letter,
 Smith
 states
 that
 the
 Pharmacy
 Supervisor
 filled
 out
 an
 incident

report
 when
 Smith’s
 wife
 complained
 about
 the
 miss-­‐filled
 prescription
 that
 lead
 to

Winn-­‐Dixie
 investigators
 contacting
 the
 Smiths
 and
 asks
 that
 the
 investigators
 stop.

(Id.,
 p.
 3)
 Smith
 stated
 that
 Winn-­‐Dixie
 had
 not
 provided
 a
 copy
 of
 the
 incident
 report

and
 noted
 his
 intent
 to
 file
 a
 motion
 to
 compel
 to
 obtain
 the
 incident
 report.

 (Doc.
 43,
 p.

2,
 n.2)

 A
 motion
 to
 compel
 has
 now
 been
 filed.
 (Doc.
 48)

6

to
 add
 Bosarge
 as
 a
 defendant
 soon
 after
 he
 was
 made
 aware
 that
 she
 was
 a
 Pharmacy

Technician
 who
 may
 have
 been
 involved
 in
 processing
 his
 prescription.

 As
 a
 result,
 this

action
 is
 due
 to
 be
 remanded
 to
 the
 Circuit
 Court
 of
 Mobile
 County,
 Alabama
 for
 further

proceedings.

 Ingram
 v.
 CSX
 Transportation,
 Inc.,
 146
 F.3d
 858,
 861–862
 (11th
 Cir.1998)

(“When
 the
 district
 court
 granted
 Ingram's
 motion
 to
 add
 the
 City
 as
 a
 defendant,

complete
 diversity
 no
 longer
 existed
 between
 the
 parties,
 thereby
 destroying
 subject

matter
 jurisdiction.”)

Done
 and
 ordered
 this
 the
 21st
 day
 of
 August
 2014.

s/
 Kristi
 K.
 DuBose

KRISTI
 K.
 DuBOSE

UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 JUDGE

7