DOLL v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.

Filing 10

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 10/31/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MAZIELL DOLL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4198 (MLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE PLAINTIFF brought this action in state court to recover
damages for violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee
Protection Act (“NJCEPA”) against her former employer, the
defendant Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. (“PASI”).

(See dkt. entry

no. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl. at 5-6.)

PASI then

removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1332, as,
inter alia, (1) the plaintiff is a New Jersey citizen, and (2)
PASI is deemed to be a citizen of Delaware and California.

(See

Notice of Removal at 3-4.)
THE PLAINTIFF has now filed an Amended Complaint, alleging
only NJCEPA violations again.
at 6-7.)

(See dkt. entry no. 5, Am. Compl.

But the plaintiff has added several individual

defendants (“Individual Defendants”), and asserts that (1) they
are PASI employees, and (2) some of them are New Jersey citizens.
(Id. at 2.)

PASI has not denied those assertions.

As a result,

the plaintiff is no longer a “citizen[] of [a] different State[]”

in relation to each defendant.

28 U.S.C. § 1332; see Lincoln

Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005) (reading “statutory
formulation ‘between . . . citizens of different States’ to
require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all
defendants”); see also Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Yoder, 112
Fed.Appx. 826, 828 (3d Cir. 2004) (stating “subject matter
jurisdiction is never waived”).
IT APPEARS that “[i]f 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.”

28 U.S.C. §

1447(e); see Kabakjian v. United States, 267 F.3d 208, 212 (3d
Cir. 2001).

There is “a general principle that jurisdiction is

determined at the time the suit is filed”, but “in diversity
cases the rule admits to at least one exception,” i.e., Section
1447(e), and thus a court can, “after suit is filed, permit the
destruction of subject matter jurisdiction”.
at 212.

Kabakjian, 267 F.3d

The Court thus intends to (1) permit joinder of the

Individual Defendants, and (2) remand the action for lack of
jurisdiction under Section 1332.

For good cause appearing, the

Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 31, 2013
2