Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00568/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00568-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

DAD’S ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:13cv568-MHT

) (WO)

SODEXO CONSTRUCTION, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Dad’s Enterprises, Inc., brought this suit

in Alabama state court against defendantSodexo

Construction, Inc., and other defendants, asserting

various state-law claims. According to the complaint,

Sodexo contracted with Tuskegee University to construct a

new dormitory, and Dad’s in turn entered into a

subcontract to perform some of the necessary work for

Sodexo. The complaint alleges, in essence, that Sodexo

and the other original defendants did not pay pursuant to

the subcontract.

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 6
Sodexo removed this case from state to federal court

on August 8, 2013, based on diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Sodexo filed

a third-party complaint against Tuskegee on January 13,

2014, and, on March 18, 2014, stipulated to the dismissal

of the third-party complaint. On May 30, 2014, Dad’s

filed a motion to amend its complaint to add three new

defendants, including Tuskegee, and the court granted that

motion on June 9, 2014, albeit with leave to a nonmovement to file an objection afterward.

Thereafter, Sodexo filed a response opposing Dad’s

motion to amend; because the court had already granted the

motion, it will treat Sodexo’s response as an objection to

the court’s order. The parties agree that, if the new

defendants are added, diversity-of-citizenship will be

destroyed because Dad’s and the three new defendants,

including Tuskegee, are all citizens of Alabama.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 6
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a district court has

discretion in deciding whether to permit joinder of a

diversity-destroying defendant. This subsection provides:

“If 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 State court.”

28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).

In determining whether joinder is appropriate under

§ 1447(e), the court balances the equities involved.

Tillman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1023, 1029 (5th

Cir. 1991); Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179, 1182

(5th Cir. 1987). “[T]he court should consider the extent

to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal

jurisdiction, whether plaintiff has been dilatory in

asking for amendment, whether plaintiff will be

significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and any

other factors bearing on the equities.” Hensgens, 833

F.2d at 1182.

3

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 6
Applying the considerations articulated in Tillman and

Hensgens, the court concludes that the new defendants

should be added. It appears that Dad’s desires to pursue

proper claims against Tuskegee and the other new

defendants. There is no credible evidence that Dad’s

seeks to add the new defendants to defeat federal

jurisdiction. While Dad’s filed its motion to amend some

nine months after removal, circumstances have changed in

the interim: Sodexo first filed a third-party suit against

Tuskegee, and then dismissed that suit with prejudice,

apparently through a settlement agreement. Dad’s argued

that these developments and other intervening events led

it to add Tuskegee and the other new defendants into the

case, and Sodexo has not explained to the court’s

satisfaction why that is not so. Finally, the court is

not persuaded that Sodexo will suffer prejudice if the new

defendants are added apart from losing its forum of

choice, and the court finds that the interests of

4

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 4 of 6
efficiency would be best served if all the claims against

all the defendants are tried by the same factfinder.

***

Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of

the court as follows:

(1) The responsive brief (Doc. No. 31) filed by

defendant Sodexo Construction, Inc., in opposition to the

motion to amend filed by plaintiff Dad’s Enterprises,

Inc., is treated as an objection to the court’s order

(Doc. No. 30) granting the motion to amend.

(2) Defendant Sodexo Construction, Inc.’s objection

(Doc. No. 31) is overruled.

(3) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), this lawsuit is

remanded to the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama,

for want of removal jurisdiction based on diversity of

citizenship.

5

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 5 of 6
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate

steps to effect the remand.

This case is closed in this court.

DONE, this the 3rd day of July, 2014.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-00568-MHT-TFM Document 36 Filed 07/03/14 Page 6 of 6