McLain v. Dean Baldwin Painting LP
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 22 MOTION to Remand to Miami County Superior Court by Plaintiff Brian McLain and REMANDING case to Miami County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 12/21/2017. (cc: Miami County Superior Court)(lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BRIAN MCLAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEAN BALDWIN PAINTING LP and
MORROW CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-584-PPS-MGG
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Brian McLain brought this action in Indiana state court against Dean Baldwin
Painting LP. [DE 5.] The gist of this case is that McLain claims that while he was in the
scope of his employment with Morrow Construction and was an invitee on Dean
Baldwin Painting’s premises, he fell down a ladder getting down from a catwalk
resulting in injuries to McLain. Dean Baldwin Painting LP removed the case to federal
court on the basis that the named parties were completely diverse and the amount in
controversy exceeded $75,000. [DE 1.] Brian McLain subsequently amended his
complaint as a matter of course in compliance with the deadline set by Magistrate Judge
Michael Gotsch to add his alleged employer, Morrow Construction, a citizen of Indiana.
[DE 21.] The problem, of course, is that both Brian McLain and Morrow Construction
are citizens of Indiana and so Morrow Construction’s inclusion in this case appears to
have destroyed subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, Brian McLain moved to remand the
case back to state court. [DE 22.] Neither defendant responded to the motion.
Federal district courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions
between citizens of different states , so long as the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C. §1332. Defendants may remove state court actions to federal court if
the action could have been brought originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a);
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). When a party seeks joinder of a
nondiverse party after a case has been removed, 28 U.S.C. §1447(e) requires that the
court either deny the joinder or permit the joinder but remand the action to state court.
Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2009). “These are the
only options; the district court may not permit joinder of a nondiverse defendant and
retain jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis in original).
The Seventh Circuit has found the following factors relevant to determining
whether post-removal joinder of a non-diverse party is appropriate: (1) the plaintiff’s
motive for seeking joinder—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. at 758.
To be clear, Morrow Construction already has been joined as a defendant to this
lawsuit because McLain amended his complaint as a matter of course and was not
required to move for leave to join Morrow Construction. Furthermore, neither
defendant has filed anything contesting the joinder. But even if the issue of Morrow
Construction’s joinder was before me, I believe Morrow Construction was properly
joined. McLain alleges that it was in the course and scope of his employment with
2
Morrow Construction that he was injured as a result of the negligence of both
defendants. While McLain could have included Morrow Construction in his first filed
complaint, I do not believe that his purpose for joining it now is to defeat federal
jurisdiction, because if one believes the allegations of the amended complaint, Morrow
Construction had a duty to McLain as his employer and neither defendant has filed
anything arguing otherwise. For those reasons, the joinder of Morrow Construction,
LLC destroyed subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be remanded to state
court.
ACCORDINGLY:
Brian McLain’s Motion to Remand, DE 22, is GRANTED and this case is
REMANDED to the Miami County Superior Court.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 21, 2017.
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?