Forster v. Tractor Supply Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00627
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIANNA FORSTER, No. 1:23-cv-00627-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO 14 TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, REMAND ACTION 15 Defendant. 16 (Doc. 18) 17 18 Plaintiff Dianna Forster moves for leave to amend her complaint and to remand this action 19 to the Madera County Superior Court. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and to 20 Remand Action to State Court (“Motion”), Doc. 18. After receiving leave to file an untimely 21 opposition, Defendant Tractor Supply Company (“Tractor Supply”) opposed the Motion. 22 Opposition to Motion (“Opposition”), Doc. 26. Forster then filed her reply. Reply to Motion 23 (“Reply”), Doc. 27. This matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local 24 Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, Forster’s Motion is granted. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff Dianna Forster, a citizen of California, filed a personal injury action in Madera 27 County Superior Court alleging she was injured when a forklift operated by a Tractor Supply 28 1 employee hit her. Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 (“Complaint”), Doc. 1 at 2, 8. Forster’s suit alleged 2 claims against defendants Tractor Supply Company, Tractor Supply Company West, LLC, and 3 Does 1 to 50, for (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, 4 or retention of employee, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Complaint, 5 Doc. 1 at 5-11. The Complaint indicates that Does 1 to 50 “were agents or employees of other 6 named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment” and that the Doe 7 defendants are “persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff.” Complaint, Doc. 1 at 6. 8 Forster served interrogatories on defendants on April 14, 2023, seeking, among other information, 9 the identity of the Tractor Supply employee at fault for the accident and individuals who 10 witnessed or reported the accident. Motion, Doc. 18-1 at 3; Declaration of Steven S. Dias in 11 Support of Motion; Doc. 18-2 at ¶ 5. 12 On April 21, 2023, Tractor Supply removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 13 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).1 Notice of Removal, Doc. 1. On July 25, 2023, the assigned magistrate 14 judge held a status conference with the parties, set case management dates, and indicated the 15 court’s intent to issue a Scheduling Conference Order after the parties dismissed defendant 16 Tractor Supply West, LLC, as the parties proposed to do. Docs. 6, 12. Forster voluntarily 17 dismissed Tractor Supply West, LLC from this action on August 18, 2023. Docs. 7, 9. No 18 district judge was assigned to this matter between mid-November 2023 and March 14, 2024, due 19 to a judicial vacancy in Fresno. This case was reassigned to the undersigned on March 14, 2024. 20 Doc. 11. The assigned magistrate judge then issued the Scheduling Conference Order on

21 1 Tractor Supply’s Notice of Removal states that it is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the State of Tennessee. 22 Notice of Removal, Doc. 1 at 2. For purposes of assessing diversity jurisdiction, “[a] limited 23 liability company is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens, not the state in which it was formed or does business.” Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., 92 24 F.4th 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Assuming Tractor Supply is a limited liability company as pleaded, it has not identified its owners, or their state(s) 25 of citizenship, and it may have failed to sufficiently establish its citizenship to invoke diversity jurisdiction. The court also notes that the Delaware Secretary of State website lists Tractor 26 Supply as a Delaware corporation. As this order grants Forster’s motion to amend her complaint 27 and finds that remand is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) based on the joinder of non- diverse defendants Carter-Still and Jimenez, it does not further address whether Tractor Supply 28 has established its diverse citizenship. 1 March 26, 2024. Doc. 12. The Scheduling Conference Order listed August 11, 2023 as the 2 parties’ deadline to make initial disclosures, and October 27, 2023 as the deadline to file 3 stipulated amendments or motions to amend (id. at 2), but the parties did not make initial 4 disclosures until early April 2024, shortly after the Scheduling Conference Order was issued. 5 Following the parties’ initial disclosures, Forster moved on May 24, 2024 to amend her 6 complaint and remand this action to state court. See Motion, Doc. 18. Forster seeks to amend her 7 complaint to add Candice Carter-Still, the Tractor Supply employee whose alleged negligence 8 caused Forster’s injuries, and Danny Jimenez, the store manager, as defendants. Forster alleges 9 Carter-Still and Jimenez are citizens of California. Motion, Doc. 18-1 at 2. Forster further 10 alleges that she did not know the identities of the employee or store manager at the time she filed 11 her complaint or at the time of removal. Motion, Doc. 18-1 at 2. On April 14, 2023, prior to the 12 removal of this action, plaintiff sought to discover the identities of the employee and store 13 manager by propounding interrogatories. Declaration of Steven S. Dias in support of Motion, 14 Doc. 18-2 at 2. Forster alleges she did not know the identities of the store employee and store 15 manager until she received Tractor Supply’s initial disclosures in early April 2024. Motion, Doc. 16 18-1 at 4. Forster now seeks to amend her complaint to add the store employee and manager as 17 defendants. Id. Joinder of the two nondiverse defendants to this action would destroy diversity 18 jurisdiction. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would 21 destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the 22 action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). “The language of § 1447(e) is couched in 23 permissive terms,” and “the decision regarding joinder of a diversity destroying-defendant is left 24 to the discretion of the district court.” Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 25 1998). 26 District courts generally consider the following factors when exercising their discretion to 27 permit or deny joinder of non-diverse defendants: (1) whether the new defendants are needed for 28 a just adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a); (2) whether 1 the statute of limitations would preclude the filing of a new action against the new defendants in 2 state court; (3) whether there has been unexplained delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether 3 joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new 4 defendants appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will prejudice the plaintiff. Eguilos v. 5 Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00614-KJM-KJN, 2022 WL 2713273, at *2 (E.D. 6 Cal. July 13, 2022) (compiling district court cases); Bakkal v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:22- 7 CV-01615-ART-BNW, 2023 WL 4581656, at *2 (D. Nev. July 17, 2023). “Any of these factors 8 might prove decisive, and none is an absolutely necessary condition of joinder.” Sabag v. FCA 9 US, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06639-CAS(RAOX), 2016 WL 6581154, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) 10 (quoting Cruz v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 12-00846, 2012 WL 2838957, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 11 10, 2012)). “[D]efendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper,” and any doubt 12 as to removability is resolved in favor of remand.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer 13 Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 As Forster seeks to join new defendants who would destroy diversity jurisdiction, 28 16 U.S.C. § 1447(e) governs, and the court considers each of the six factors above to determine 17 whether joinder of the new defendants and remand are appropriate. 18 A. Joinder Under Rule 19(a) 19 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires joinder of persons whose absence would 20 preclude the grant of complete relief, or whose absence would impede their ability to protect their 21 interests or would subject any of the parties to the danger of inconsistent obligations.” Clinco v. 22 Roberts, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). “Although courts 23 consider the standard set forth in Rule 19 in determining whether to permit joinder under Section 24 1447(e), ‘amendment under [Section] 1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for joinder under 25 Rule 19.’” Avellanet v. FCA US LLC, No. CV 19-7621-JFW(KSX), 2019 WL 5448199, at *1 26 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019) (quoting Sabag, 2016 WL 6581154, at *4). “This standard is met when 27 failure to join will lead to separate and redundant actions,” but not when the non-diverse 28 1 defendants “are only tangentially related to the cause of action or would not prevent complete 2 relief.” IBC Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 3 2d 1008, 1011–12 (N.D. Cal. 2000). The salient question for purposes of § 1447(e) is whether 4 joinder will prevent separate and redundant actions. Eguilos, 2022 WL 2713273, at *2. 5 Forster contends that joinder is necessary for a just adjudication because Carter-Still and 6 Jimenez are substantially involved in the underlying incident in this case. Motion, Doc. 18-1 at 7; 7 Reply, Doc. 27 at 3. Tractor Supply argues that it would be vicariously liable for its employees’ 8 actions, that it is obligated to defend and indemnify its employees, and thus, the employees are 9 not needed for a just adjudication. Opposition, Doc. 26 at 10. However, the fact that Tractor 10 Supply may be held liable for its employees’ actions does not afford Forster complete relief 11 where she may still seek redress from the employees. “Respondeat superior makes employers 12 vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employees; it does not shield employees from 13 suits for their negligence.” Silva v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 18-1218-JFW(AGRX), 2018 14 WL 6112613, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2018). Forster may pursue claims against Tractor 15 Supply’s employees individually and thus, Carter-Still and Jimenez may be properly joined under 16 Rule 19. See Roblin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 23-CV-01828-RFL, 2024 WL 1131038, at 17 *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024) (compiling cases). If joinder were not permitted, Forster could still 18 seek redress from Carter-Still and Jimenez by filing in state court, and, therefore, joinder of these 19 new defendants will prevent separate and redundant actions. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 20 favor of permitting joinder of the Tractor Supply employees. 21 B. Statute of Limitations 22 If the statute of limitations would preclude the filing of an action against the new 23 defendants in state court, this factor would weigh in favor of granting leave to amend to add the 24 new defendants. Reyes v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00833-DAD-SKO, 2020 WL 7224286, at 25 *10 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2020). If, however, a “plaintiff could file an action against the joined 26 defendant in state court, then there is less reason to join them in this action.” Id. (quoting Sandhu 27 v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, No. 16-CV-04987-BLF, 2017 WL 403495, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28 31, 2017). Forster does not contend that the statute of limitations has run or that she would be 1 precluded from filing a new action against Carter-Still and Jimenez in state court. Motion, Doc. 2 18-1 at 7. Accordingly, this factor weighs against permitting joinder of Carter-Still and Jimenez. 3 C. Timeliness 4 In evaluating this factor, district courts consider the length of time that passed between the 5 filing of the original complaint and the amended complaint, and whether dispositive motions have 6 been filed. See Reyes, 2020 WL 7224286, at *5 (compiling cases). 7 Forster’s complaint was filed on January 17, 2023, and she sought to amend her complaint 8 on May 24, 2024. While that time gap is significant, for part of that period this case was not 9 assigned to a district judge due to a judicial vacancy in Fresno. See Docket. Moreover, although 10 the scheduling conference was held on July 25, 2023, the Scheduling Conference Order was not 11 entered until March 26, 2024. While the Scheduling Conference Order set a deadline of 12 August 11, 2023 to exchange initial disclosures, and a deadline of October 27, 2023 to file an 13 amended complaint (Doc. 12 at 2), those dates had long passed by the time the Scheduling 14 Conference Order was entered and the parties did not make initial disclosures until early 15 April 2024. Forster asserts she did not ascertain the identities of the new defendants until 16 receiving Tractor Supply’s initial disclosures in early April 2024, and she filed her motion to 17 amend shortly thereafter. Tractor Supply argues that although initial disclosures were not 18 exchanged until April 2024, the parties had engaged in informal discovery and had attempted to 19 schedule a mediation. Opposition, Doc. 26 at 12. Tractor Supply asserts that it did not believe 20 Forster was still seeking to join the Tractor Supply employees. Id. at 12-13. 21 Under the circumstances, the court finds Forster timely sought to amend her complaint to 22 add the new defendants once she became aware of their identities. Tractor Supply and Forster did 23 not exchange initial disclosures until April 2024, and Forster timely filed the present motion after 24 receiving Tractor Supply’s disclosures. Forster also sought the identities of the relevant 25 employees through interrogatories at the onset of the case, just prior to the removal of the case to 26 federal court. It does not appear that Tractor Supply responded to those interrogatories once the 27 case was removed, and Tractor Supply does not contend that Forster knew the identities of the 28 employees prior to its April 2024 initial disclosures. Further, no dispositive motions have been 1 filed in this case, Forster filed her motion shortly after the Scheduling Conference Order was 2 issued, and discovery remains open. Forster timely pursued joinder of the new defendants 3 following Tractor Supply’s disclosure of the identities of the two employees. As there has not 4 been an unreasonable delay in seeking joinder of the two employees, this factor weighs in favor 5 of permitting joinder of Carter-Still and Jimenez. 6 D. Motive for Seeking Joinder 7 “[T]he question of whether joinder is solely intended to defeat jurisdiction is ‘intertwined’ 8 with the question of whether the claims against the new defendant appear valid.” Sabag, 2016 9 WL 6581154, at *5–6 (finding that the plaintiff's motive in joining dealership defendant was “not 10 solely to destroy diversity” because plaintiff's claim against the dealership was “facially 11 legitimate”). “Courts have permitted joinder even where the plaintiff appears to be primarily 12 motivated by a desire to defeat diversity jurisdiction, as long as the plaintiff has alleged a valid 13 claim against the non-diverse defendant.” Reyes, 2020 WL 7224286, at *6 (collecting cases). 14 Moreover, “[s]uspicion of diversity destroying amendments is not as important now that 15 § 1447(e) gives courts more flexibility in dealing with the addition of such defendants.” IBC 16 Aviation Servs., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012. 17 Although Forster has indicated her interest in availing herself of a trial preference she 18 would receive in state court, joinder of the two Tractor Supply employees is not sought solely to 19 defeat diversity jurisdiction. Forster originally listed as Doe defendants the employees she 20 alleged were at fault in the incident. The Complaint detailed the events of the incident, contained 21 allegations that an employee was negligently operating a forklift, and contained a cause of action 22 asserting negligence in the training, supervision, and hiring of the employee driving the forklift. 23 See Complaint, Doc. 1 at 5-11. Forster also sought to discover the names of the employees 24 involved prior to removal. The actions of the employee driving the forklift and the store manager 25 are more than tangentially related – their actions are directly at issue in this action. As the two 26 employees Forster seeks to add are more than tangentially related to the causes of action in this 27 case, this factor weighs in favor of joinder of Carter-Still and Jimenez. 28 1 E. Validity of Claims 2 “The existence of a facially legitimate claim against the putative defendant weighs in 3 favor of permitting joinder under [Section] 1447(e).” Westberg v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:18-cv- 4 01509-BAM, 2019 WL 3500559, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) (quoting Forward–Rossi v. 5 Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00949-CAS(KSx), 2016 WL 3396925, at *4 (C.D. 6 Cal. June 13, 2016)). This factor requires only that the claim be facially valid, which is a lower 7 standard than on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. See Sabag, 2016 WL 8 6581154, at *6 (quoting Freeman v. Cardinal Health Pharm. Servs., LLC, No. 2:14-cv-01994- 9 JAM-KJN, 2015 WL 2006183, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2015)). 10 Tractor Supply argues that Forster’s claims against Carter-Still and Jimenez 11 “unequivocally occurred within the scope of their employment” and will be imputed to Tractor 12 Supply. Opposition, Doc. 26 at 16. However, as set forth above, Forster also has valid claims 13 against Carter-Still and Jimenez. As such, this factor weighs in favor of joinder. 14 F. Prejudice 15 “Prejudice exists if the proposed defendant is ‘crucial’ to the case. Prejudice does not 16 exist if complete relief can be afforded without that defendant.” Sabag, 2016 WL 6581154, at *6 17 (quoting McCarty v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:10-cv-00350-OWW-DLB, 2010 WL 2629913, *9 18 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted)). “Where claims against parties sought to be joined in an 19 action ‘arise out of the same factual circumstances,’ it is in the economic benefit of all parties and 20 the judicial system to ‘have the entire controversy adjudicated only once,’ and to force the 21 plaintiff to ‘proceed with expensive litigation in state court against [the putative defendant] would 22 create avoidable prejudice.’” Claar v. Centaur Holdings United States Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00742- 23 SHK, 2023 WL 359489, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2023) (quoting Sagrero v. Bergen Shippers 24 Corp., No. 2:22-CV-04535-SPG-RAO, 2022 WL 4397527, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2022)). 25 Efficiency and economic considerations warrant having all claims against all the 26 defendants adjudicated in the same action, and Forster would be prejudiced if she were required 27 to pursue separate federal and state cases over this single accident. Having this matter resolved in 28 one court would also avoid inconsistent judgments. Tractor Supply does not argue that it will 1 suffer prejudice if joinder of its employees is permitted, and it does not dispute that Forster’s 2 claims against the new defendants arise out of the same factual circumstances. Rather, it argues, 3 incorrectly, that Forster has no separate or independent claims against the employees. 4 Opposition, Doc. 26 at 16-17. As set forth above, Forster may bring suit directly against the 5 Tractor Supply employees and is not limited to pursuing Tractor Supply on a respondeat superior 6 theory of liability. As such, this factor weighs in favor of joinder. 7 The balance of the § 1447(e) factors weigh in favor of permitting joinder of Carter-Still 8 and Jimenez. Given the balance of these factors, the strong presumption against removal 9 jurisdiction, and Tractor Supply’s failure to meet its heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder, 10 the court concludes that the joinder of Carter-Still and Jimenez is appropriate. The court will 11 exercise its discretion and permit their joinder in this action. 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1} IV. CONCLUSION 2 Tractor Supply removed this action based on diversity of citizenship. Notice of Removal, 3 | Doc. No. | at 1. Forster has established that the joinder of defendants Carter-Still and Jimenez in 4 | this action is warranted. As the addition of Carter-Still and Jimenez, both citizens of California, 5 | destroys diversity jurisdiction, the court will remand this action to the Madera County Superior 6 | Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 7 Accordingly, the court ORDERS: 8 1. Forster’s Motion (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. 9 2. Forster’s First Amended Complaint (Exhibit I to the Declaration of Steven S. Sias in 10 Support of Motion, Doc. 18-2 at 75-81) is deemed filed and is the operative complaint. 11 3. This action is REMANDED to the Madera County Superior Court for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction. 13 4. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to the clerk of the Madera County 14 Superior Court. 15 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 1g | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 19 Dated: _ August 23, 2024 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10