Brenda Johnson v. Holdings Acquisition Company L.P., et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRENDA JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) 2:25-cv-01289-CB ) v. ) Judge Cathy Bissoon ) HOLDINGS ACQUISITION ) COMPANY L.P., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Defendant Stadium Casino’s Motion (Doc. 9) for leave to file an Amended Notice of Removal will be granted, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) will be denied without prejudice and Plaintiff will be ordered to file an amended complaint. Stadium Casino is correct that leave to amend its Notice of Removal is appropriate under the circumstances. This Defendant’s citizenship is diverse from Plaintiff’s, and denying amendment to thwart such a showing serves no legitimate purpose. Stadium Casino’s attempt to maintain complete diversity, by removing the case before Plaintiff could amend the Complaint in state court, is equally unwarranted. Defendant’s counsel acknowledges that Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint prior to removal. Compare Doc. 1-4 (Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend in state court, attached to the Notice of Removal) and Pl.’s Mot. to Remand (Doc. 4) at ¶¶ 8-10 (the motion was docketed in state court on August 20, 2025, it was scheduled for presentation August 22nd, and Defendant removed the case to federal Court on August 21st, one day before presentation) with Def.’s Br. in Opp’n to Remand (Doc. 8) at 8 (acknowledging that Plaintiff’s motion was filed in state court before removal, but disputing that Stadium Casino consented to the requested amendment). Given Plaintiff’s acknowledged-intention to amend her pleadings, the matter is controlled by the recent Supreme Court decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025). Under it, “amending a complaint in a removed case to join a non-diverse party destroys diversity jurisdiction, and the federal court must remand the case to state court.” Id. at 24.

Much as the existence of diversity does not hinge on Stadium Casino’s filing of a deficient but curable Notice of Removal, complete diversity cannot be foisted on Plaintiff by depriving her an opportunity to amend the pleadings ‒ an amendment she specifically sought to make. To the extent that legal precedent requires an examination of the pleadings at the time of removal, at least under these circumstances, the proposition does not survive Royal Canin. Stadium Casino’s Motion (Doc. 9) for leave to file an Amended Notice of Removal is GRANTED, and the Clerk of Court will docket the Amended Notice, forthwith. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and she shall file an amended complaint by December 19, 2025 and serve it in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 5, 2025 s/Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):

All Counsel of Record

1 Because Plaintiff’s amendment will join an allegedly non-diverse party (Gaming & Leisure Properties, Inc.), the alleged defect in removal is not governed by the 30-day limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See id. (excluding motions to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction).