Jurisdiction - Diversity - Remand - Indispensible party.

Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where a defendant removed a state court action to federal court based upon complete diversity of the parties but the plaintiff then amended its complaint as a matter of right to add a non-diverse indispensible party, joinder of the indispensible party is allowed and the case is remanded to state court for lack of diversity jurisdiction in federal court.

"This jurisdictional dispute arises out of an underlying tort suit where a truck equipped for bridge-inspecting malfunctioned. The plaintiff initially filed its suit in state court and defendant removed to federal court. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff amended its complaint to add a non-diverse defendant and moved to remand.

"On August 6, 2018, Bridge Contractors, a Massachusetts company, filed suit against Aspen, a Minnesota company, in Bristol County Superior Court.

"One week later, Aspen removed the initial Bristol County Superior Court action to this Court and had until September 11, 2018, to respond to the removed complaint. Before it did so, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 23 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), which added Western Star Truck Sales Inc., an Oregon corporation and the manufacturer of the truck ('Western Star') and Tri State, a Massachusetts corporation, as defendants ('the additional defendants').

"Plaintiff filed its motion to remand the day after filing its amended complaint. Aspen alleges that plaintiff deliberately added a nondiverse defendant to destroy diversity through improper amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). It further contends that under 28 U.S.C. 1447, 1) Tri State is a dispensable party that should be dismissed from this action and 2) the Court should exercise its equitable power to reject plaintiff's amendment.

"Plaintiff responds that the claims against Aspen and the additional defendants arise from the same nexus of operative facts and that the district court has discretion under 1447(e) to remand and not to apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) mechanically. It submits that 1) it intended all along to amend the initial complaint, 2) it was distracted by the pending preliminary injunction motions in state court and 3) even under a Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b) analysis, Tri State is an indispensable party to this suit.

"The doctrine of 'fraudulent joinder', in which a district court can disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of non-diverse...