Perfetti et al v. Walgreens (TWP2)
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION: defendant Walgreen's motion to remand [Doc. 14] will be GRANTED and this case will be remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Tennessee. An appropriate order will be entered. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on August 8, 2018. (AYB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ARTHUR GEORGE PERFETTI and
wife, AMBER PERFETTI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WALGREENS, GWENDOLYN T.
MCDANIEL, and ALL ABOUT YOU
FAMILY MEDICINE, P.C.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:18-cv-87
Judge Phillips
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant Walgreen Company has filed a motion to remand [Doc. 14] this case to
the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Tennessee, along with the supporting affidavit of
James W. Harrison, attorney for Walgreen Company [Doc. 14-1].
No response or
opposition has been filed and the time for doing so has passed. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a),
7.2.
For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion to remand [Doc. 14] will be
GRANTED.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiffs Arthur George Perfetti and his wife, Amber Perfetti, originally filed this
action against defendant Walgreen pursuant to the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act,
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101, et seq., in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Tennessee,
on January 30, 2018 [Doc. 1-1]. Plaintiffs claim that the Walgreen pharmacy in Jefferson
City, Tennessee, dispensed a prescription for Mr. Perfetti and the directions regarding how
the medication was to be taken were erroneous [Doc. 14-1 at ¶ 3]. Defendant timely
removed the case to this Court on March 7, 2018, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 [Doc. 1]. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Tennessee and
Walgreen Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Illinois [Id.
at ¶ 4].
Subsequent to removal, Walgreen obtained new information regarding the
prescriber of the medication as a non-party at fault [Doc. 14 at ¶ 4]. Walgreen moved to
remand [Doc. 14] and then filed an answer identifying the prescriber, Gwendolyn T.
McDaniel, and her employer, All About You Family Medicine, P.C., as nonparties at fault
[Doc. 15 at ¶ 18]. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding Ms. McDaniel and
All About You Family Medicine, P.C., as defendants [Doc. 19]. 1 Ms. McDaniel is a citizen
and resident of Tennessee, as are the plaintiffs [Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 2, 18].
II.
Analysis
In a case premised on diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different
states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The diversity statute requires “complete diversity between
all plaintiffs and all defendants.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005); see
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (“diversity jurisdiction
1
The Court notes that plaintiffs filed the amended complaint without first seeking leave to do so
as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
2
does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff”)
(emphasis in original). In this case, at the time of removal, complete diversity existed
between the named plaintiffs and defendant Walgreen, the only defendant at that time, and
removal was proper.
Even if removal was proper, “if at any time before final judgment, it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Further, “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 the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). In this case,
plaintiffs did not seek prior leave to add defendants McDaniel or All About You Family
Medicine. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, in light of the information contained in
Mr. Harrison’s affidavit [Doc. 14-1] and Walgreen’s answer to the complaint [Doc. 15], it
appears that these additional parties are proper defendants. Thus, Walgreen argues, without
opposition, that the joinder of the additional defendants destroyed diversity jurisdiction and
remand of the case to state court is required. Section 1447(e) provides specific rules
relative to the Court’s removal jurisdiction, and it directs the Court to remand a case to
state court when the post-removal joinder of a defendant destroys diversity jurisdiction.
See Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transp., Inc., 462 F.3d 536, 540—41 (6th Cir. 2006) (where an
amended complaint is filed to include a previously unidentified defendant, diversity must
be determined at the time of the filing of the amended complaint). Accordingly, because
the post-removal joinder of Gwendolyn T. McDaniel and All About You Family Medicine,
3
P.C., destroyed diversity jurisdiction in this matter, this case must be remanded to state
court.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, defendant Walgreen’s motion to remand [Doc. 14]
will be GRANTED and this case will be remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson
County, Tennessee. An appropriate order will be entered.
s/ Thomas W. Phillips
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?