PENN PIONEER ENTERPRISES, LLC et al v. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANOVER et al
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion to Remand to State Court; granting 5 Motion to Amend/Correct for the reasons set forth more fully in the Opinion itself. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 12/18/15. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PENN PIONEER ENTERPRISES, LLC,
WYLIE HOLDINGS, L.P., W. KING
PROPERTIES, INC., DONEGAL MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, and
KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF HANOVER and
CORNERSTONE UNDERWRITING
PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 15-1343
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF Nos. 4 and 5
OPINION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court and a Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Penn Pioneer Enterprises, LLC, Wylie Holdings, L.P.,
W. King Properties, Inc., Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., and Knightbrook Insurance Co.
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). ECF Nos. 4 and 5. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to
Remand will be denied. The Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, however, will be granted
and the case will nevertheless be remanded to state court.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this insurance action against Defendants International Insurance
Company of Hanover (“IICH”) and Cornerstone Underwriting Partners, LLC (“Cornerstone”)
(collectively, “Defendants”), on September 24, 2015, by filing a Complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. At 5:15 p.m. on October 14, 2015,
Defendants electronically submitted a Notice of Removal in the Court of Common Pleas based
on diversity.1 ECF No. 14, p. 2; ECF No. 14-1. The Notice of Removal, however, was not
docketed until the next day -- October 15, 2015, at 3:02 p.m. ECF No. 4, p. 2, ¶ 6; ECF No. 14,
p. 5. In the interim, on October 15, 2015, at 11:26 a.m., Plaintiff’s filed an Amended Complaint
in order to add Jack L. Bonus Insurance, Inc. (“Bonus”) as a defendant. ECF No. 4, p. 2, ¶ 5.
See ECF No. 4-1. Because Bonus is a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiffs contend that
complete diversity did not exist and thus the case was not only improperly removed to this Court
but should now be remanded. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend the Complaint
so as to add Bonus as a defendant here.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Motion to Remand
A defendant in a civil action brought in state court has a statutory right to remove the
action to federal court if the claims brought by the plaintiff could have been brought originally in
federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under the statutory scheme, if the defendant removes a
case to federal court based upon diversity of citizenship, “a proper exercise of federal jurisdiction
requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement as well as complete diversity
between the parties, that is, every plaintiff must be of diverse state citizenship from every
defendant.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 215 (3d Cir. 2006).
1
According to the Complaint, Penn Pioneer Enterprises, LLC, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company with a
business address of 100 Cherrywood Court, Harrison City, Pennsylvania; Wylie Holdings, L.P. is a Pennsylvania
Limited Partnership with a business address of 5170 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, PA; W. King Properties, Inc., is a
Pennsylvania corporation with a registered business address of 4933 Butler Street, Pittsburgh, PA; Donegal Mutual
Insurance Company is a Pennsylvania business corporation with a registered business address of 1195 River Road
Marietta, Lancaster, PA; Knightbrook Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with administrative offices
located at 927 West Main Street, Valley View, PA; International Insurance Company of Hannover, Ltd, is an
insurance company that regularly conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has an agent for
service of process Alexis Burgess, located at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400,
Los Angeles, CA; and Cornerstone Underwriting Partners, LLC, is an insurance agency and or brokerage which
regularly conducts 'business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an office of 800 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite
A-1000, Oak Ridge, TN. ECF No. 1-3, ¶¶ 1-8.
2
Here, Plaintiffs argue that because they filed an Amended Complaint in state court adding
Bonus as a defendant on October 15, 2015, at 11:26 a.m., diversity no longer existed when
Defendants filed the Notice of Removal later that day at 3:02 p.m., and thus removal to this
Court was improperly granted in the first instance. Plaintiffs’ argument, however, overlooks the
fact that although the Notice of Removal was not docketed until 3:02 p.m. October 15, 2015, the
Notice of Removal had been submitted to, and received by, the Clerk of Court the day before -on October 14, 2015. Because the Notice of Removal was deemed filed when it was received by
the Clerk, it was necessarily filed before Plaintiffs submitted their Amended Complaint. See
McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1996). Diversity therefore still
existed at the time the Notice of Removal was filed and removal to this Court was proper. As
such, remand based on the absence of diversity is unwarranted and Plaintiffs’ Motion in this
regard is properly denied.
B.
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Alternatively, Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed to amend the Complaint in this Court so
as to add Bonus as a defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that when a plaintiff requires leave of
the court to amend its complaint, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice requires.” In
addition, a plaintiff is generally free to join proper defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P 20(a)(1). See City
Line-Hamilton Builders, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1286187, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29,
2013). It is well established, however, that when a plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint
after the case has been removed to federal court in order to join a non-diverse defendant, the
issue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Id. Section 1447(e) provides that: “If after removal
the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter
3
jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State
court.” See Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1643043, at *4 (W.D. Pa.
Apr. 9, 2015). In determining whether a motion for leave to amend in order to join a non-diverse
defendant, Section 1447(e) provides the district court with substantial deference. City LineHamilton Builders, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1286187, at *5.
Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to expressly
adopt a particular framework for analyzing motions for leave to amend under Section 1447(e), it
has implicitly approved of the approach set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Hensgens”). Hayden v. Westfield
Ins. Co., 586 F. App'x 835, 840-41 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Hensgens, 833 F.2d at 1182 (“[w]hile
we have not yet addressed the appropriate analytical approach to § 1447(e) (and need not do so
here), the Fifth Circuit has instructed that when a district court is ‘faced with an amended
pleading naming a new nondiverse defendant in a removed case, [it] should scrutinize that
amendment more closely than an ordinary amendment . . .’”). See Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop.
& Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 1643043, at *4 (noting district courts within the Third Circuit that
have adopted the approach set forth in Hensgens). Under Hensgens, such scrutiny includes
considering “‘the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction,
whether [the] plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment, whether [the] plaintiff will be
significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and any other factors bearing on the equities.’”
Id., quoting Hensgens, 833 F.2d at 1182.
Here, Defendants argue that consideration of these factors militates against allowing
Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint so as to join Bonus as a defendant. Defendants specifically
point to the fact that Plaintiffs sought to amend the Complaint only after Defendants advised
4
Plaintiffs of their intention to remove the case to federal court; that Plaintiffs were aware of
Bonus’s role in the purchase of the insurance policy at issue before they filed the original
Complaint and nevertheless chose not to bring claims against Bonus; and that Plaintiffs are still
able to bring suit against Bonus in state court for breach of contract.
Plaintiffs, however, contend that Defendants indicated only that they might remove the
case to federal court and suggest that Defendants did so only after Plaintiffs informed Defendants
that they would be filing an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs also suggest that the decision to
amend the Complaint was made after IICH indicated that “if the coverage of its insurance policy
was not what had been intended, that it was the fault of the agent and not [IICH].” ECF No. 5, ¶
4. Plaintiffs therefore conclude that the inclusion of Bonus, the insurance agency from which the
insurance policy was bought, is necessary for fair adjudication of this matter.
The Court finds that consideration of the factors set forth in Hensgens, in conjunction
with the parties’ arguments, weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and that leave to amend the Complaint
should be granted. Although Defendants argue that Plaintiffs sought to amend the Complaint
only after Defendants communicated their intention to remove the case to federal court, Plaintiffs
have suggested that Defendants removed the case knowing that Plaintiffs were going to amend
the Complaint and that diversity would therefore be lacking. Further, even if Plaintiffs were
aware of Bonus’s role in the purchase of the insurance policy before the original Complaint was
filed, it does not necessarily follow from their failure to name Bonus as a defendant at that time
that Plaintiffs’ efforts to add Bonus as a defendant now is merely to destroy diversity.2 Indeed,
review of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs filed in state court shows that Bonus was
2
Although Defendants argue that “[d]uring a telephone call on October 14, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that he
would file an amended complaint, adding [Bonus Ins.] as a defendant to defeat diversity,” see ECF No. 14, p. 3, it is
not entirely clear whether Plaintiffs’ counsel merely informed Defendants that an Amended Complaint would be
forthcoming and that the natural consequence of the amendment would be that diversity would no longer exist or
whether Plaintiffs were amending the Complaint for the sole purpose of destroying diversity.
5
instrumental in the purchase of the insurance policy at issue and thus appears to be a proper
defendant in this insurance dispute. See ECF No. 4-1. Moreover, although not entirely clear,
Plaintiffs have suggested that they were prompted to add Bonus as a defendant following
Defendants’ suggestion that perhaps Plaintiffs’ insurance agent was liable for the lack of
coverage. Under these circumstances, it is equivocal at best what Plaintiffs’ intentions are in
seeking leave to amend the Complaint.
Even if Plaintiffs amended the Complaint in order to defeat diversity, however, the other
Hensgens factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. With respect to the second factor, it cannot be said
Plaintiffs were not dilatory in filing the Amended Complaint in state court or their request for
leave to amend in this Court. Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas on September 24, 2015. ECF No. 1-2, pp. 1, 2, 3. The Amended Complaint was filed in
state court on October 15, 2015, and the Motion for Leave to Amend was filed in this Court on
October 16, 2015, which was only three weeks later and well within an appropriate time frame.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
Furthermore, although Plaintiffs could file a separate suit for breach of contract against
Bonus in state court, it would put Plaintiffs in the position of having to litigate essentially the
same matter in two different fora which would not only expend more judicial resources but
would seemingly increase Plaintiffs’ litigation costs.
Finally, Defendants have not argued that they will be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to
join Bonus as a defendant in this action. Nor does the Court perceive any prejudice that
Defendants would suffer as a result. The Court therefore finds that consideration of the factors
set forth in Hensgens weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and that they should be permitted to amend
their Complaint.
6
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is properly denied and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is properly granted. Accordingly, the following Order is
entered:
ORDER
AND NOW this 18th day of December, 2015, upon careful consideration of Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand to State Court, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and
Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand to State Court, ECF No. 4, is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the First Amended
Complaint attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, ECF No. 4-1, and remand the case to the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc:
All Counsel of Record Via CM-ECF
7
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?