Rog et al v. MK North America, Inc. et al

Filing 12

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Corning, Incorporated, and Progressive Machine & Design, LLC, are added as parties to this action; and it is further ORDERED that the in stant matter is remanded to New York State Supreme Court, Chemung County, for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to add Corning, Incorporated, and Progressive Machine & Design, LLC, as defendants; to take all steps necessary to accomplish the remand of this case to the state court indicated above; and thereafter to close this case.. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 6/17/16. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN M. ROG and KATHLEEN J. ROG,
Plaintiffs,

No. 6:16-cv-06202(MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER

-vsMK NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On January 7, 2016, John M. Rog (“Rog”) and his wife, Kathleen
J.

Rog

(collectively,

“Plaintiffs”),

commenced

an

action

in

New York State Supreme Court, Chemung County1 (“the State Court
Action”), seeking damages for personal injuries that Rog sustained
on January 9, 2013, when, during the course of his employment with
Corning, Incorporated (“Corning”), his hand was caught in a “saw
cell

loop”

that

was

manufactured,

assembled,

and

sold

by

Progressive Machine & Design, LLC (“PMD”). On March 29, 2016,
Rockwell Automation, Inc. (“Rockwell”), filed a notice of removal
(Dkt #1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, removing the State
Court Action to this Court. Defendant MK North America, Inc. (“MK”)
subsequently consented (Dkt #3) to the removal.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ First Motion to
Remand to State Court (Dkt #4) (“the Remand Motion”), seeking

1

John M. Rog and Kathleen J. Rog v. MK North America, Inc. and Rockwell
Automation, Inc., Index No. 2016-1018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Chemung Co.).

(1) permissive joinder of PMD and Corning, and (2) an order
remanding this case to New York State Supreme Court, Chemung
County, due to the absence of complete diversity of citizenship
that will result from the joinder of PMD and Corning. For the
reasons discussed below, the Remand Motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rog’s injuries occurred when he entered a saw cell loop at
Corning, which had jammed, in an effort to clear the obstruction.
While he was still inside, the saw cell loop’s conveyor system
resumed operation and crushed his hand.
During the pendency of his Workers’ Compensation claim, Rog’s
attorneys ascertained that the saw cell loop had been manufactured,
assembled, and sold by PMD. Plaintiffs then filed suit against PMD,
which

instituted

a

third-party

action

against

Corning

for

contribution and indemnification.2
Plaintiffs indicate that Corning did not respond to their
discovery demands in the State Court Action until approximately
three weeks prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations,
when it provided documents indicating the identity of additional
defendants, namely, (1) MK, which designed and sold the conveyor
components for the saw cell; and (2) Rockwell, which manufactured
and sold a number of the controls, switches, and other electronic
2

John M. Rog and Kathleen M. Rog v. Progressive Machine & Design, LLC v.
Corning Incorporated (Third Party Defendant), Index No. 001346/2014 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. Chemung Co.).

-2-

devices in

saw

cell

loop,

including

an

electronic

eye

which

Plaintiffs believe contributed to the equipment jam.
After

learning

this

information,

Plaintiffs

commenced

a

separate action in New York State Supreme Court against the MK and
Rockwell. Rockwell removed the State Court Action to this Court,
based upon currently existing diversity jurisdiction (Rog is a
resident of New York State and both MK and Rockwell are foreign
corporations).
Plaintiffs then filed the pending Remand Motion. MK and
Rockwell filed letters with the Court stating their intention not
to file opposition papers to the Remand Motion.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have moved for permissive joinder of defendant PMD
and third-party defendant Corning under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20 (“Rule 20”). As pertinent here, Rule 20 provides that
“[a]ll persons . . .

may be joined in one action as defendants if

there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all
defendants will arise in the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a).
However, permissive joinder of PMD and Corning will eliminate
complete diversity among the parties, since both entities are
New York limited liability companies, and Plaintiffs are New York

-3-

State residents.

Title 28 U.S.C., § 1447(e), provides that if a

plaintiff in a diversity action seeks to join a non-diverse party,
“the court may . . . permit joinder and remand the action to the
State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).
Whether to permit joinder under Rule 20 “rests with the sound
discretion of the [c]ourt, which must determine if joinder ‘will
comport with the principles of fundamental fairness.’” Shaw v.
Munford, 526 F. Supp. 1209, 1213 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (quoting Desert
Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir.
1980)); accord, e.g., Abraham Natural Foods Corp. v. Mount Vernon
Fire

Ins.

Co.,

576

F.

Supp.2d

421,

424

(E.D.N.Y.

2008).

In

exercising that discretion, this Court first must determine if the
requirements of Rule 20(a) are satisfied. E.g., Wyant v. National
R.R. Passenger Corp., 881 F. Supp. 919, 922 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Those
requirements are easily met here, since Plaintiffs’ claims against
PMD and Corning “arise out of the same transaction and will,
therefore, undoubtedly share many common questions of law and
fact.” Young v. Simon Ladder Towers, Inc., No. 96-CV-0189E(SC),
1996 WL 685753, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 1996) (citations omitted).
The second part of the inquiry entails consideration of
“(1) any delay, and the reasons for the delay, in seeking to amend;
(2) any resulting prejudice to the defendant; (3) the likelihood of
multiple litigation; and (4) the plaintiffs’ motivation in moving
to amend.”•Wyant, 881 F. Supp. at 923. With regard to the delay

-4-

factor, Plaintiffs assert that after learning of the existence and
potential liability of MK and Rockwell, there was insufficient time
before the expiration of the statute of limitations to add them to
the State Court Action; therefore, Plaintiffs instituted a separate
action against these defendants, with the intention of moving to
consolidate the two actions after the defendants appeared. Before
Plaintiffs could move to consolidate both actions, however, MK
removed the State Court Action. As noted above, MK and Rockwell
have not objected to remand, and the Court has no basis on which to
doubt the veracity of Plaintiffs’ explanation.
With regard to the second factor, given that MK and Rockwell
have not objected to the Remand Motion, a reasonable inference is
that they will not suffer prejudice if the Court grants Plaintiffs’
requested relief.
As to the third factor, multiple lawsuits clearly would result
if joinder is denied, with a resulting waste of judicial resources.
PMD, MK, and Rockwell all are manufacturers and suppliers of the
completed product, or component parts thereof, alleged to have
caused or contributed to Rog’s injuries, which occurred during the
course of his employment at Corning. Thus, there is a certainty of
multiple lawsuits if joinder is not permitted. See, e.g., Young,
1996 WL 685753, at *3 (“Because a trial of Young’s claims against
the City[, his employer,] would involve much of the same evidence
as

would

a

trial

of

his

claims

-5-

against

Simon

Ladder,

[the

manufacturer of the allegedly defective product,] joinder followed
by remand could promote the efficient use of judicial resources,
could spare witnesses the trouble of testifying at two different
trials and could allow Young to resolve all of his claims relating
to

his

injuries

in

a

single

action

without

the

danger

of

inconsistent judgments.”).
Finally, the Court has no basis for ascribing improper motives
to Plaintiffs’ request for permissive joinder and remand. See
Mammano

v.

American

Honda

Motor

Co.,

941

F.

Supp.

323,

325

(W.D.N.Y. 1996) (“[T]here is no evidence here that plaintiff seeks
to add the individual defendants in federal court for the sole
purpose of destroying diversity.”).
In sum, the Court finds that “[t]he most logical, economical
and equitable approach is to determine the respective rights and
liabilities of all relevant parties inter se in one proceeding.”
Mammano, 941 F. Supp. at 325 (quoting Carter v. Dover Corp., Rotary
Lift Div., 753 F. Supp. 577, 580 (E.D. Pa. 1991)). Accordingly, the
relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Remand Motion will be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ First Motion to
Remand (Dkt #4) is granted. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Corning, Incorporated, and Progressive Machine &
Design, LLC, are added as parties to this action; and it is further

-6-

ORDERED that the instant matter is remanded to New York State
Supreme Court, Chemung County, for all further proceedings.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to add
Corning, Incorporated, and Progressive Machine & Design, LLC, as
defendants; to take all steps necessary to accomplish the remand of
this case to the state court indicated above; and thereafter to
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 17, 2016
Rochester, New York.

-7-