Chandler v. L'Oreal USA Inc et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part & denying in part 20 MOTION to Clarify filed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Considering all the material circumstances, the Court comes to these conclusions: Wal-Mart remains a party; Wal-Mart's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended until 4/8/2011. The Court looks forward to all the parties' responses to the motion to amend. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/29/2011. (jct)

Chandler v. L'Oreal USA Inc et al

Doc. 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAKESIA CHANDLER, Individually and as Next Friend to Minor Jasmine Davis

PLAINTIFF

v.

Case No. 2:11-cv-ll-DPM

L'OREAL USA INC.,
L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS INC.,
and WAL-MART STORES, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER Wal-Mart's motion to clarify, Document No. 20, is partly granted and partly denied: the Court clarifies its ruling, but denies the other relief requested. First, the Court was unaware at the March 22nd hearing that WalMart had been served in early March. This service does not change the jurisdictional analysis.

Pecherski v. General Motors Corp., 636 F.2d 1156,

1158-61 (8th Cir. 1981). Second, the Court did not drop Wal-Mart from the case. The Court ruled that Wal-Martwas a party against whom the complaint made no claim. Diversity jurisdiction thus existed at removal and still exists. Third, no party moved the Court to dismiss Wal-Mart for misjoinder, which is essentially what Wal-Mart now seeks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Dockets.Justia.com

21. Fourth, there is inadequate time to hear from Plaintiff and the L'Oreal Defendants on Wal-Mart's motion because WaI-Mart's time to answer probably runs today if service occurred on 8 March 2011. FED. R. ClV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Fifth, if the Court grants Plaintiff's pending motion to amend her complaint, then Wal-Mart will remain in the case. If the Court denies that motion, then Wal-Mart's presence could be addressed by a motion to dismiss. Considering all the material circumstances, the Court comes to these conclusions: Wal-Mart remains a party, albeit one in an odd posture; and Wal-Mart's time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint should be and is extended until 8 April 2011. The Court looks forward to all the parties' responses to the motion to amend. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2