The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., a non-diverse defendant, and to reflect additional facts and information. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion.
This case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court by defendants Puget Sound Commerce Center, Vigor Industrial LLC, and Vigor Shipyards (“removing defendants”) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure due to plaintiff Nolan Legeaux’s work in construction, industrial plants, and shipyards, and as a result developed lung cancer. Removing defendants opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, arguing that it was a veiled attack at the court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend pleadings only with the other party’s written consent or with the court’s leave. Although the rule requires the trial court to freely grant leave to amend, the court should scrutinize an amended pleading naming a new non-diverse defendant in a removed case more closely than an ordinary amendment. The court applied the four-part analysis adopted by the Fifth Circuit in determining whether the amendment should be allowed. The four factors were as follows: (1) the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction; (2) whether the plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment; (3) whether the plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment was not allowed; (4) any other factors bearing on the equities.
Here, it was unclear whether the plaintiffs knew or should have known about Taylor-Seidenbach’s involvement at the time suit was filed in state court. The court also had “concerns about the propriety of considering the allegations and what if any credence to give them,” because unenrolled counsel who had not submitted pro hac vice applications all signed on to the plaintiffs’ motion and appeared at depositions. “The Court is not sure what credence if any to give the allegations derived from an attorney not properly before this Court, and this strengthens the specter of suspicion surrounding the motion.” Further, counsel for Taylor-Seidenbach was at depositions, making the court highly suspicious that the plaintiffs were unaware of this defendant when the suit was originally filed.
Although the plaintiffs were not dilatory in asking for the amendment, as the request came one month after the plaintiffs argued they learned of Taylor-Seidenbach, plaintiffs would not be significantly injured if amendment was not allowed. Regarding the fourth element — any other factor — the court’s findings on the first and third elements supported the defendants’ interest in the federal forum. Thus, three of the four factors weighed heavily in favor of denying the amendment, and the plaintiffs’ motion for leave was denied.