Shaw v. American Coal Company

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court GRANTS Atlas Copco's motion to join in American Coal's response (Doc. 67 ); GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add additional defendants (pa rt of Doc. 65 ). She may add claims against Atlas Copco and may amend claims against American Coal as outlined in this order. She may not add claims against Pate, Barter or Webb; ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have up to and including September 8, 2017, to file an amended complaint that complies with this order; and REFERS the motion to amend the scheduling order (part of Doc. 65) to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(1). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/24/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAIME SHAW, as Administrator of the Estate
of Robert Eric Clark, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-1196-JPG-RJD
v.
THE AMERICAN COAL COMPANY,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ ThirdParty Counterdefendant,
v.
DAVID STANLEY CONSULTANTS, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant/ Third-Party
Counterclaimant/Crossclaimant
and
ATLAS COPCO AB,
Third-Party Defendant/ Crossclaim
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Jaime Shaw’s motion to amend her
complaint to add four additional defendants and to amend the scheduling order (Doc. 65).
Defendant The American Coal Company (“American Coal”) objects to the amendment to the
extent it seeks to add three individual defendants (Doc. 66). Third-party defendant Atlas Copco
Mining & Construction USA LLC (“Atlas Copco”; misnamed in the complaint as Atlas Copco
AB) asks to join American Coal’s objection (Doc. 67), which the Court will allow.

I.

Background
This case arose out of the June 6, 2016, death of plaintiff’s decedent Robert Eric Clark.

Clark worked at the New Era Mine, a coal mine operated by American Coal. The plaintiff
claims that on June 6, 2016, an agent of American Coal directed Clark to get under a piece of
equipment. The equipment fell on Clark, killing him.
Shaw, the administrator of Clark’s estate, filed this wrongful death, survival and expense
action against American Coal in state court. Her complaint charges, among other things, that
American Coal failed to provide a safe workplace for Clark, failed to properly train Clark and
negligently directed him to get under the piece of equipment that fell on him.
American Coal removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on the basis
of original diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity existed. See
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch (7 U.S.) 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806). The plaintiff was a citizen
of Illinois based on Clark’s Illinois citizenship at the time of his death, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(2), and American Coal was a citizen of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and Ohio,
the state of its principal place of business, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Additionally, more than
$75,000 was in issue, exclusive of interest and costs.
The plaintiff now asks the Court for leave to amend her complaint to add as defendants
Brad Pate, Christopher Barter and Vernon Webb, all of whom she claims were agents or
employees of American Coal and reside in Illinois. She also seeks to add Atlas Copco, the
manufacturer of the piece of equipment that fell on Clark. American Coal and Atlas Copco
object to the joinder of Pate, Barter and Webb on the grounds that their presence would destroy
diversity jurisdiction; they assume since Pate, Barter and Webb reside in Illinois, they are
citizens of Illinois. They do not object to the joinder of Atlas Copco.

2

II.

Analysis
The Court proceeds on the assumption that Pate, Barter and Webb are citizens of Illinois,

although residency is not the same as citizenship. See Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299
F.3d 616, 617 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating “residence and citizenship are not synonyms and it is the
latter that matters for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction”). Under this assumption, joinder of
Pate, Barter or Webb would destroy the diversity subject matter jurisdiction upon which this case
depends. Therefore, the Court’s decision is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) rather than the
ordinary amendment standard in Rule 15(a). Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752,
759 n.3 (7th Cir. 2009). That statute states, “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 the State court.” Thus, under § 1447(e), the Court has
only two choices: “(1) deny joinder, or (2) permit joinder and remand the action to state court.
These are the only options; the district court may not permit joinder of a nondiverse defendant
and retain jurisdiction.” Schur, 577 F.3d at 759. In making the choice, the Court should balance
the equities, considering “(1) the plaintiff’s motive for seeking joinder, particularly whether the
purpose is to defeat federal jurisdiction; (2) the timeliness of the request to amend; (3) whether
the plaintiff will be significantly injured if joinder is not allowed; and (4) any other relevant
equitable considerations.” Id.
The plaintiff claims that at the time she filed her original complaint, she lacked
information concerning the identities of individuals working at the site where Clark died so she
could not name them in that pleading. She has since identified those individuals in discovery.
American Coal and Atlas Copco believe that the plaintiff seeks to join Pate, Barter and Webb
simply as a means to get this case back to state court, her preferred forum. They note that none

3

of the individuals are likely to be able to substantially contribute to paying a judgment, should
the plaintiff prevail. They further note that the plaintiff knew Pate was involved in this case
months, if not a year, ago and did not sue him or others as John Doe defendants in the original
complaint. American Coal and Atlas Copco assert the plaintiff will not be injured by the failure
to join the individuals because they will still be available as witnesses in the case. Finally, they
argue they have a compelling interest in a federal forum. The plaintiff has not replied to the
response by American Coal and Atlas Copco.
The Court exercises its discretion to decline to allow joinder of Pate, Barter or Webb. It
appears their joinder would add nothing to the case and would serve simply to defeat federal
jurisdiction. All of the individuals’ alleged conduct appears to have been in their capacities as
American Coal employees and is conduct for which American Coal would be liable on a
respondeat superior theory. Causes of action against the individuals would be duplicative of the
causes of action against American Coal, from whom the plaintiff could obtain complete relief.
Thus, the most likely motive for joinder of Pate, Barter or Webb at this point would not be to
recover for wrongs or from defendants not asserted in the original complaint but to defeat federal
jurisdiction.
The Court also notes that if Pate, Barter and Webb are not joined in this case, the plaintiff
may still sue them in state court because the applicable statutes of limitations have not run.
Thus, the plaintiff may obtain full relief from those individuals for their individual conduct in
that forum if she chooses.
The Court gives the most weight to the two foregoing consideration in its decision. Less
important, but worthy of note, is (1) that the plaintiff did not act promptly after discovering the
identity of additional parties who may have committed wrongful conduct before seeking leave to

4

amend and (2) that American Coal has a right to a federal forum if there is a basis for federal
jurisdiction.
For these reasons, the Court will not allow joinder of Pate, Barter or Webb individually
but will allow additional allegations or claims involving those individuals to be made against
American Coal in an amended complaint. The plaintiff may also join as a defendant Atlas
Copco.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:


GRANTS Atlas Copco’s motion to join in American Coal’s response (Doc. 67);



GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her
complaint to add additional defendants (part of Doc. 65). She may add claims against
Atlas Copco and may amend claims against American Coal as outlined in this order. She
may not add claims against Pate, Barter or Webb;



ORDERS that the plaintiff shall have up to and including September 8, 2017, to file an
amended complaint that complies with this order; and



REFERS the motion to amend the scheduling order (part of Doc. 65) to Magistrate Judge
Reona J. Daly pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 24, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

5