Haltner v. American Home Prod.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 8, 1999
• Docket: CV-99-333-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Haltner v. American Home Prod. CV-99-333-B 10/08/99

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Diane Haltner et a l .

v. Civil No. 99-333-B

American Home Products Corp., et a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth-

Ayerst Laboratories removed this diversity of citizenship case to

federal court. Plaintiffs Diane Haltner, Michael Haltner, and

Betty Kane seek to amend their complaint to add non-diverse

defendants and ask the court to remand the case to state court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).

Section 1447(e) provides that: "[i]f after removal the

plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would

destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder,

or permit joinder and remand the action to the state court." The

First Circuit has determined that in a case such as this where

the new defendants are dispensable the court may either deny joinder and retain jurisdiction or allow joinder and remand

the case to state court. See Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita

Coovstar America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 675 (1st Cir. 1994). Among

the factors that a court must consider in choosing between these

two options are: (1) whether the plaintiff is attempting to

undermine federal jurisdiction; (2) whether the plaintiff has

unreasonably delayed its motion to amend; (3) whether the

plaintiff's interests will be severely impaired if its motion is

denied; and (4) "any other factors bearing on the eguities."

Hensgens v. Deere & Company, 833 F.2d 1179, 118 (5th Cir. 1987);

see also Casas Office Machines, Inc., 42 F.3d at 675 n.8

(endorsing Hensgens factors).

This case is one of hundreds of similar product liability

cases that have been filed against American Home Products and

Wyeth-Ayherst Laboratories arising from the manufacture and sale

of the drugs Phentermine and Fenfluramine. Many of these cases

have been consolidated for purposes of discovery and other

pretrial matters in a multidistrict litigation proceeding. This

case will be transferred to the multidistrict litigation

proceeding if I deny joinder and retain jurisdiction. Such a

transfer will greatly reduce the expense and complexity of

- 2 - discovery. While plaintiffs will be inconvenienced if they are

forced to simultaneously litigate their claims against different

defendants in state and federal court, the inconvenience is of

their own making because they neglected to join all of the

defendants in their state court complaint. Further, the harm

that plaintiffs will suffer if I retain jurisdiction does not

outweigh the benefits that the defendants will experience if I

retain jurisdiction. Accordingly, I deny plaintiff's motion to

amend and remand (doc. no. 4).

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

October 8, 1999

cc: Leslie Nixon, Esg. Richard Mills, Esg.

- 3 -