Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08161/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08161-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Betty Jane Foster,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Zurich American Insurance Company,

et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8161-PCT-PGR

(Yav. Co. Sup. Ct. No. 20091294)

 

 

 ORDER OF REMAND

This action arises out of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on

August 16, 2007 when she fell out of a golf cart in which she was a passenger

while on the premises of the Yavapai-Apache Nation’s Cliff Castle Casino, and

from the subsequent conduct of the casino’s insurer, Zurich American Insurance

Company and its adjuster, Jani Lehane (collectively “Zurich”), related to their

handling of the plaintiff’s insurance claim. 

Zurich removed this action from the Yavapai County Superior Court solely

on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s operative

complaint at the time of removal was her Amended Civil Complaint, wherein she

named John Doe Driver, the alleged driver of the golf cart, as a fictitious

defendant. In an order (doc. #37) entered on May 4, 2010, the Court, in the

Case 3:09-cv-08161-PGR Document 43 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 On May 19, 2010, Zurich filed a Supplement to Response to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Remand (doc. #40), wherein it reiterates its previous argument that the

plaintiff’s attempt to join defendant Thurman constitutes a fraudulent joinder

which will not defeat removal on diversity grounds and augments it by the

addition of documentary evidence and a declaration purporting to show that

Thurman was in fact an employee of the Yavapai-Apache Nation/Cliff Castle

Casino at the time the plaintiff was injured. The Court has not considered this

supplemental response (or the plaintiff’s response thereto (doc. #41)) because (1)

Zurich did not seek the Court’s permission to file a supplemental response, (2)

the submitted evidence could have been submitted prior to the Court’s ruling

permitting the addition of Thurman, and (3) the doctrine of fraudulent joinder has

no dispositive application at this stage of the proceedings. See Borden v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir.2009) (Court, noting that the fraudulent joinder

doctrine permits a court to ignore only those non-diverse parties on the record in

the state court action at the time of removal, stated that “once a court permits

post-removal joinder of a non-diverse defendant, the fraudulent joinder doctrine is

not thereafter available, the court loses subject matter jurisdiction, and remand is

- 2 -

exercise of its discretion, granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (First) Amended

Complaint and permitted her to file a second amended complaint that in part

substituted Kenneth David Thurman in place of John Doe Driver. The plaintiff

filed her Verified Second Amended Civil Complaint (doc. #38) on May 14, 2009,

adding Thurman as a defendant; the second amended complaint is predicated

solely on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. There is no dispute that Thurman is

a non-diverse party inasmuch as he and the plaintiff are both Arizona citizens.

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (docs. #15 and

#16-1), wherein the plaintiff argues that this action must be remanded pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), which 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.” Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court finds that remand is

required under § 1447(e) given the joinder of non-diverse defendant Thurman.1

Case 3:09-cv-08161-PGR Document 43 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).”) (internal brackets and quotation

marks omitted).

 

2

 To the extent that the plaintiff argues in her motion to remand that she is

entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

because Zurich improperly removed this action, the Court disagrees. Removal

was proper because defendant Thurman was not a named defendant at the time

of removal, defendant John Doe Driver was merely a fictitiously-named defendant

whose citizenship was disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and the Notice of Removal properly alleged the existence

of diversity citizenship as to the named parties.

- 3 -

Although Zurich argues that the motion to remand must be denied because

both this Court and the state court lack subject matter and personal jurisdiction

over the defendants because such jurisdiction is exclusive to the Yavapai-Apache

Nation tribal court, the Court disagrees that a remand pursuant to § 1447(e) is not

now mandated.2 See Yniques v. Cabral, 985 F.2d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.1993)

(Once a court permits the post-removal joinder of a non-diverse defendant in an

action founded on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, remand, not dismissal, is

required under § 1447(e)); see also, Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d

1061, 1068 (9th Cir.2001) (In discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), court stated that “[i]f

diversity were the only basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, joinder of

the non-diverse [defendants] would have divested the court of jurisdiction.”);

Casas Office Machines, Inc. v. Mita Copystar America, Inc., 42 F.3d 668, 674 (1st

Cir.1994) (“... Congress has indicated [in § 1447(e)] that federal diversity

jurisdiction is defeated so long as, after removal, fictitious defendants are

replaced with nondiverse, named defendants, regardless of whether they happen

to be dispensable or indispensable to the action.”) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. #15 and #16-1)

Case 3:09-cv-08161-PGR Document 43 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 Since the Court is remanding this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(e), it is not resolving the two pending motions to dismiss: Zurich’s Motion

to Dismiss Counts 1-5 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(6), for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief may be Granted (doc.

#8), and Defendant Kenneth Thurman’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. #34).

- 4 -

is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and that this action is remanded to the

Yavapai County Superior Court.3

DATED this 1st day of June, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08161-PGR Document 43 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4