Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00980/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00980-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441pi Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THU VU TRAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv0980 DMS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND AND

REMAND

v.

MACY’S INC., a Ohio corporation;

MACY’S STORE NO. 550, a business

entity form unknown; JANE “DOE,” a

resident of the County of San Diego,

California; and DOES 2 through 250

Inclusive,

Defendants.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint

and to thereafter remand this case to state court. Defendant Macy’s West Stores, Inc.

filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. For the reasons set out

below, the motion is granted.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 1 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
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

27

28

I.

BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2016,1

 Plaintiff Thu Vu Tran went to the Macy’s Store in

Westfield North County of Escondido. (Id.) While in the store, Plaintiff tripped and

fell on a necklace that was lying on the floor. (Id.) After the fall, Plaintiff was trampled

by a throng of shoppers. (Id.) As a result of this incident, Plaintiff suffered “multiple

fractures to her left leg, necessitating surgery with implantation of rods and screws,

lower back injuries and severe bruising, most especially on her left arm, and causing

other associated damages and losses[.]” (Id.) 

On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present case in San Diego Superior Court

against Macy’s Inc., Macy’s Store No. 550 and Jane “Doe,” a resident of the County of

San Diego, California. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence and premises

liability. On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to name Macy’s West

Stores, Inc. in place of Macy’s, Inc. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. filed an Answer to the

Complaint on May 5, 2017, and on May 11, 2017, removed the case to this Court on the

basis of diversity jurisdiction. The present motion followed. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint to substitute Christine

Loughridge for Defendant Jane “Doe.” With this amendment, Plaintiff asserts diversity

jurisdiction is lacking, and the case must be remanded to state court. 

Although leave to amend generally is governed by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a), this Rule “‘does not apply when a plaintiff amends her complaint after

removal to add a diversity destroying defendant.’” Dorfman v. Mass. Casualty Ins. Co.,

1

 The Complaint alleges the date of the accident was September 2, 2016. (See

Compl. ¶ 16.) However, Plaintiff later alleges “[i]t was so-called ‘Black Friday,’ the first day of shopping after Thanksgiving[.]” (Id.) In the present motion, Plaintiff states the accident occurred on November 25, 2016. (See Mot. at 2.) Because that date corresponds to “Black Friday,” the Court assumes the accident occurred on that date, not on September 2, 2016.

- 2 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

No. CV 15-06370 MMM (ASx), 2015 WL 7312413, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2015)

(quoting Greer v. Lockheed Martin, No. CV 10-1704 JF (HRL), 2010 WL 3168408, at

*4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2010)). In that situation, courts look to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e),

which states, “[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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). 

When deciding whether to permit joinder under § 1447(e), a court should

consider the following factors: (1) whether the party sought to be joined is needed for just adjudication and would be joined under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 19(a); (2) whether the statute of limitations would prevent the filing of a new action against the new defendant in state court; (3) whether there has been an unexplained delay in seeking to join the new

defendant; (4) whether the plaintiff seeks to join the new party solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether denial of the joinder would

prejudice the plaintiff; and (6) the strength of the claims against the new

defendant. 

Mkrtchian v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, No. LACV 16-09102 VAP (AJWx), 2017

WL 2957931, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) (citing Boon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 229

F.Supp.2d 1016, 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). 

A. Just Adjudication

“‘Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires joinder of persons whose absence

would preclude the grant of complete relief, or whose absence would impede their

ability to protect their interests or would subject any of the parties to the danger of

inconsistent obligations.’” Id. (quoting Clinco v. Roberts, 41 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1082

(C.D. Cal. 1999)). “While courts consider the standard set forth under Rule 19 in

determining whether to permit joinder under section 1447(e), ‘amendment under §

1447(e) is a less restrictive standard than for joinder under [Rule 19]’” Id. (quoting IBC

Aviation Services, Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F.Supp.2d

1008, 1011-12 (N.D. Cal. 2000)). This less restrictive standard “‘is met when failure

to join will lead to separate and redundant actions,’ but it is not met when

/ / /

- 3 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
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

27

28

‘defendants are only tangentially related to the cause of action or would not prevent

complete relief.’” Id. (quoting IBC Aviation, 125 F.Supp.2d at 1012). 

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant addresses this factor directly, but based on the

facts presented, it is possible that failure to join Ms. Loughridge could lead to separate

and redundant actions. Ms. Loughridge is alleged to be the Merchandise Lead at the

Macy’s Store where the accident occurred. Thus, she could be held responsible for any

negligent conduct on her own behalf or on behalf of any employees under her

supervision. Assuming Ms. Loughridge was acting in the course and scope of her

employment at the time of the accident, it is likely Macy’s would defend Ms.

Loughridge, and thus a separate action against her would be unnecessary. 

Theoretically, however, it is possible that failure to join Ms. Loughridge as a party to

this case could result in Plaintiff having to litigate two separate cases in two separate

courts arising out of the same incident. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of

granting leave to amend. 

B. Statute of Limitations

The next factor is “whether the statute of limitations would prevent the filing of

a new action against the new defendant in state court[.]” Id. Here, the statute of

limitations on Plaintiff’s negligence claim is two years. See Cal. Code of Civ. P. §

335.1 (stating “action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual

caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another” is two years). The accident having

occurred on November 25, 2016, Plaintiff would not be prevented from filing a case

against Ms. Loughridge in state court. Therefore, this factor weighs against granting

leave to amend. 

C. Unexplained Delay

The next factor is “‘whether the amendment was attempted in a timely fashion.’”

Mrktchian, 2017 WL 2957931, at *3 (quoting Clinco, 41 F.Supp.2d at 1083). Plaintiff

asserts it was, Defendant does not dispute that assertion, and the Court agrees with

Plaintiff. Defendant removed the case to this Court on May 11, 2017. Plaintiff filed

- 4 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
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

27

28

the present motion three weeks later on June 1, 2017. The present motion was filed in

a timely manner, and thus this factor weighs in favor of granting leave to amend. 

D. Purpose of Joinder

The next factor is “whether the plaintiff seeks to join the new party solely to

defeat federal jurisdiction[.]” Id. at 2. Plaintiff here asserts she “has good faith reasons

for adding Christine Loughridge as a Defendant in the case[,]” (Mot. at 6), e.g., she was

the Merchandise Manager at the Macy’s Store where Plaintiff’s accident occurred, and 

her negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at 9.) Accordingly, this factor weighs

in favor of granting leave to amend.

E. Prejudice to Plaintiff

The next factor asks “whether denial of the joinder would prejudice the

plaintiff[.]” Mrktchian, 2017 WL 2957931, at *2. As indicated in the discussion of

factor number one above, the answer to this question is “yes.” Absent joinder of Ms.

Loughridge, Plaintiff would be forced to file another complaint against her in state

court, and then to litigate that claim in state court and the present claims in this Court. 

That situation would result in prejudice to Plaintiff, and thus this factor also weighs in

favor of granting leave to amend. 

F. Strength of Claims

The final factor for consideration is “the strength of the claims against the new

defendant.” Id. Here, Plaintiff asserts she has a valid negligence claim against

Christine Loughridge. However, Defendant disagrees. It argues there is no evidence

Ms. Loughridge is the Jane “Doe” identified in the Complaint, and thus Plaintiff’s

proposed claim against her is not viable. 

 As evidence that Christine Loughridge is the Jane “Doe” identified in the

Complaint, Plaintiff relies on Ms. Loughridge’s LinkedIn Profile. (See Mot., Ex. H.)

This Profile, accessed on May 31, 2017, states Ms. Loughridge is the Merchandise Lead

at Macy’s, and lists her location as Oceanside, California. (Id.) It is unclear from the

Profile whether Ms. Loughridge works at the Macy’s store in Oceanside or Escondido,

- 5 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

and it is also unclear whether she worked at Macy’s at the time of subject accident. 

Nevertheless, Defendant “bears the burden of establishing that the proposed amendment

is futile[,]” Dorfman, 2015 WL 7312413, at *3 (citing Mead v. City First Bank of CD,

N.A., 256 F.R.D. 6, 8 (D.D.C. 2009)), and it has not met that burden here. Assuming

the facts alleged are true, that Ms. Loughridge was the Merchandise Lead at the

Escondido Macy’s Store on the date of Plaintiff’s accident, Plaintiff may have a viable

claim against Ms. Loughridge. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting leave to

amend. 

III.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the factors discussed above, the Court grants Plaintiff leave

to amend her Complaint to substitute Christine Loughridge for Defendant Jane “Doe.” 

Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint to that effect on or before July 28,

2017. Upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the case will be remanded to

San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2017

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 6 - 17cv0980

Case 3:17-cv-00980-DMS-BLM Document 11 Filed 07/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6