Turner v. Red Robin International, Inc
Filing
15
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 9 MOTION to Amend Complaint and Remand, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit this matter back to King CountySuperior Court. (SWT)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_______________________________________
)
LAQUESHA TURNER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
Case No. C17-0322RSL
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND AND REMANDING ACTION
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
15
and Motion to Remand.” Dkt. # 9. “Once removal has occurred, the district court has two
16
options in dealing with an attempt to join a non-diverse party. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) provides that
17
‘if after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy
18
subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action
19
to the State court.’” Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2001)
20
(internal alterations omitted). When determining whether to grant leave to amend in these
21
circumstances, courts in the Ninth Circuit consider a number of factors, including:
22
1. Whether the party sought to be joined is needed for just adjudication . . . ;1
23
24
25
26
1
This factor generally includes the phrase “and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19(a).” Joinder under § 1447(e) is less restrictive than joinder under Rule 19(a), however, and
the key issues are the significance of the relationship between the causes of action and the new
defendant and whether complete relief can be awarded in the absence of the new defendant. IBC
Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Campania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp.2d 1008, 1011-12
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
AND REMANDING ACTION
2. Whether the statute of limitations would preclude an original action against the
new defendants in state court;
1
2
3. Whether there has been unexplained delay in requesting joinder;
3
4. Whether joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction;
4
5. Whether the claims against the new defendant appear valid; and
5
6. Whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff.
6
Milton v. Xerox Corp., 2016 WL 641130, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2016). Having considered
7
the factors and the relevant case law, the Court grants leave to amend. Defendant has asserted
8
defenses, only some of which have been withdrawn, which seek to avoid liability on the ground
9
that the newly-named defendants are at fault. Allowing plaintiff to pursue her claims against all
10
three potentially-liable parties in a single litigation will improve efficiency and avoid the risk of
11
inconsistent verdicts. The proposed amendment is not fraudulent, it is an appropriate response to
12
defendant’s litigation position, and it was timely sought. While plaintiff clearly prefers to litigate
13
this action in state court (if for no other reason than that she may be able to reclaim a right to a
14
jury trial that has been waived in this forum), that preference should not be construed negatively
15
any more than is defendant’s preference for federal court. Taylor v. Honeywell Corp., 2010 WL
16
1881459, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2010).
17
Defendant argues that, if leave to amend is granted, the Court should hang onto the case
18
for ninety days to see if plaintiff asserts a federal cause of action. Granting leave to amend will
19
destroy diversity and deprive the Court of jurisdiction. As discussed above, the appropriate
20
course of action in that situation is remand. Defendant offers no authority for the proposition that
21
the Court should ignore governing law and retain jurisdiction when jurisdiction no longer exists.
22
The Court declines the invitation.
23
24
//
25
26
(N. D. Cal. 2000).
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
AND REMANDING ACTION
-2-
1
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to amend is GRANTED and this case
2
is hereby remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If, as defendant fears,
3
plaintiff again amends her complaint to assert a federal cause of action, a second removal may be
4
appropriate. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit this matter back to King County
5
Superior Court.
6
Dated this 5th day of May, 2017.
7
8
A
Robert S. Lasnik
9
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
AND REMANDING ACTION
-3-
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?