Fogarty v. U.S. Bank

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs unopposed Motion to Remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 17]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri for all further proceedings. 17 Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 5/20/13. cc: St. Louis County.(CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BARBARA FOGARTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12-CV-2149 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. [Doc. 18]. Defendant
U.S. Bank has not filed a response to the motion. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction
of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). For the
following reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
I.

Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this action in state court in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis,

Missouri. Plaintiff’s state court petition alleged that she suffered personal injuries due to the
negligence of Defendant U.S. Bank. On November 16, 2012, Defendant U.S. Bank properly
removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). At the Rule 16 Conference in this action, the parties informed the Court that Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint adding an additional party, which would destroy diversity
jurisdiction in this case. On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding
Diversified Contractors, Inc. a Missouri corporation as a defendant.

[Doc. 16].

Plaintiff

subsequently filed a Motion to Remand asserting that the addition of Defendant Diversified

Contractors, Inc. destroyed diversity jurisdiction in this action and requested remand of this
action to state court.
II.

Discussion
“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). Joinder is required if the new party is necessary and
indispensable to a full resolution of the case. Bailey v. Bayer CropScience, L.P., 563 F.3d 302,
308 (8th Cir. 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).
At the time Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, the Court was
aware, based on counsels’ prior disclosures, that the addition of Diversified Contractors, Inc.
would destroy diversity jurisdiction.

As represented by counsel, Defendant Diversified

Contractors, Inc. was performing work on Defendant U.S. Bank’s parking lot, where Plaintiff
alleges she was injured. Therefore, it is a necessary and indispensable party to this action and
the Court will remand this action to state court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Remand is
GRANTED. [Doc. 17].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Twenty-First
Judicial Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri for all further proceedings.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2013.

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2