Rosalind Powell v. Walmart, Inc., et al.

Summary

The court denied Rosalind Powell’s motion for leave to file a supplemental and amended complaint seeking to substitute two Walmart employees for a fictitious defendant. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and the Hensgens factors, the court concluded that the proposed amendment would destroy diversity jurisdiction, was supported by suspect timing, and failed to state a valid personal-liability claim against the proposed employees under Louisiana law.

Holdings

1. When a post-removal amendment would add nondiverse defendants and destroy subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) controls and gives the court discretion either to deny joinder or to permit joinder and remand the action.
2. The proposed amended complaint did not state a valid claim for individual liability against Reynolds or Holley because allegations of general administrative responsibility for safety, without personal fault, personal involvement, or knowledge of and failure to remedy the risk, are insufficient under Louisiana law.
3. The Hensgens factors did not support permitting joinder because the timing of the amendment suggested an intent to defeat diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff's delay was at least neutral, the plaintiff could obtain complete relief from the diverse employer, and no additional equitable factor favored amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) alone, governs a post-removal amendment that would add nondiverse defendants and destroy subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the proposed amended complaint stated a cognizable Louisiana-law claim for individual liability against the proposed employees under Canter v. Koehring Co.
3. Whether the Hensgens factors and the equities warranted permitting joinder of the proposed nondiverse employees and remanding the action.

Disposition

other