Williams v. AMF Southshore Lanes

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MONIQUE WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 19-cv-07557-YGR

6 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE FIRST 7 vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REMANDING TO STATE COURT 8 AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC., ET AL., Re: Dkt. No. 18 9 Defendants.

10 Plaintiff Monique Williams brings this action arising out of the alleged November 19, 11 2016 shooting and death of her son, Antwaun Williams, on the premises of defendant AMF 12 Bowling Centers, Inc. (“AMF”). Plaintiff filed this action on November 16, 2018 in Alameda 13 County Superior Court, alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability. On July 14 31, 2019, the state court granted plaintiff’s motion to add AMF as a Doe defendant. AMF 15 subsequently filed its answer and a cross-complaint against Nesctc Security Agency LLC 16 (“Nesctc”). Plaintiff amended the complaint substituting Nesctc for a Doe defendant. The case 17 was removed to federal court on November 16, 2019. On November 22, 2019, Nesctc filed its 18 answer and a cross-complaint against Bay Valley Security Inc. in state court. Plaintiff now seeks 19 to amend the complaint to add Bay Valley Security Inc.; Bay Valley Security, LLC; and George 20 Odhiambo, an alleged part owner, member/manager, and director of Bay Valley Security Inc., as 21 defendants. 22 28 U.S.C. section 1447(e) provides that “[i]f after removal the plaintiff seeks to join 23 additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny 24 joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” Courts generally consider the 25 following factors when deciding whether to allow amendment to add non-diverse defendants: 26 (1) the party to be joined is necessary for just adjudication; (2) plaintiff would be barred by a 27 statute of limitations from bringing claims against the new defendant in state court; (3) there has 1 (5) the claims against the new defendant appear valid; and (6) denial of joinder will prejudice 2 plaintiff. IBC Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F. Supp. 3 2d 1008, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) permission to 4 amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.” 5 Here, AMF opposes amendment in large part on the ground that plaintiff’s motion was not 6 timely brought. Plaintiff became aware of the proposed new defendants on or around November 7 22, 2019. On March 30, 2020, plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that she intended to amend 8 the complaint to add the defendants. At the time, it was not yet known whether defendants would 9 oppose, which explains the further delay in filing of the motion. Thus, plaintiff is responsible for 10 approximately four months of delay in filing the motion. Given that the case is still in its 11 relatively early stages, with neither party having filed dispositive motions or conducted any 12 discovery, the Court declines to find undue delay in filing of the motion. See Watson v. Ford 13 Motor Co., No. 18-CV-00928-SI, 2018 WL 3869563, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) (“[T]he 14 Court does not find that the six month delay from the filing of the complaint to plaintiff’s request 15 for amendment amounts to undue delay.”). 16 With respect to Odhiambo, AMF argues that plaintiff has not stated any basis to add him as 17 a defendant other than to defeat diversity. Even without Odhiambo, however, plaintiff would 18 defeat diversity by adding BVS Inc. and Bay Valley Security, LLC to this case. Further, 19 plaintiff’s allegation that Odhiambo is a part owner, member/manager, and director of BVS Inc. is 20 sufficient, at this juncture, to warrant his inclusion in the case. Although the Court reaches no 21 conclusion about whether plaintiff will successfully state a claim against Odhiabmo, amendment 22 does not appear to be for any fraudulent or dilatory purpose. 23 Moreover, the Court notes that denial of the motion may deprive plaintiff of the 24 opportunity to recover fully by naming all relevant tortfeasors in a single action. Alternatively, 25 plaintiff has represented that absent amendment, she may be forced to file a parallel, redundant 26 second lawsuit in state court against the proposed new defendants.1 On the other hand, AMF has 27 1 not demonstrated that it would be prejudiced by the inclusion of defendants, who allegedly are 2 responsible, at least in part, for the incident at issue in this case. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion for leave to file a first 4 amended complaint adding Bay Valley Security Inc.; Bay Valley Security, LLC; and George 5 Odhiambo as defendants. The inclusion of these California defendants destroys diversity. Thus, 6 || the Court REMANDS this case to the Alameda County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court is 7 directed to remand the case and close the file.” 8 This Order terminates Docket Number 18. 9 IT Is SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: May 22, 2020 Davee Hag 0 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 3 «4

15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations a4 || were discovered, and the reasons why the request to amend the complaint was not made earlier. AME contends that plaintiff has failed to comply with this rule. While the Court is mindful of 25 plaintiffs failure to file a copy of the proposed amended complaint, the statements of the parties at the March 30, 2020 case management conference, combined with the papers submitted in 26 connection with the motion, provide the Court with sufficient information about the substance of 97 the proposed amendments and the basis for the motion.

28 ? Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this decision appropriate without a hearing.