Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00980/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00980-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HARCROW, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00980-OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS

AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER (DOC. 18)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

I. Ruling on Motion for Leave to Amend

On January 18, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to

file an amended complaint. On January 31, 2007, all defendants

who have been served and who remain in the action filed a notice

of non-opposition. By separate order the Court has vacated the

hearing on the motion and has deemed the motion submitted on the

papers filed in connection with the motion.

Plaintiffs seek to file an amended complaint in this action,

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 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

2

which is one for damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs

when a stereo system purchased from a Circuit City store in 1998

caught fire while being operated on January 18, 2005. The action

was removed from the state superior court in July 2006.

Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint in order to name

Circuit City Stores West Coast, Inc., as a defendant. Plaintiffs

believe that this entity may be the correct defendant in place of

present Defendant Circuit city Stores, Inc., and they will

dismiss other defendants accordingly after additional discovery. 

Plaintiffs state in the moving papers that the entity sought

to be joined would destroy diversity of citizenship because it is

alleged to be a corporation organized and existing under the law

of the state of California and qualified to do business in the

state of California. (Prop. Amended Complt. p. 2.)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

A party may amend the party’s pleading once as a

matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which

no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has 

not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party

may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it

is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s

pleading only by leave of court or by written consent

of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given

when justice so requires. . . .

Although the rule is to be construed liberally, leave to amend is

not automatically granted. Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d

1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). In determining whether the Court

should exercise its discretion to allow amendments, the following

factors should be considered: (1) whether the movant unduly

delayed seeking leave to amend, or acted in bad faith or with

dilatory motive; (2) whether the party opposing amendment would

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 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

3

be unduly prejudiced by the amendment; 3) whether there have been

repeated failures to cure, and (4) whether amendment would be

futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230

(1962).

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) provides:

In any civil action of which the district courts

have original jurisdiction founded solely on section

1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have

supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over

claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under

Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be

joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or

seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of

such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction

over such claims would be inconsistent with the

jurisdictional requirements of section 1332.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) states:

 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 the State court.

Authority in this circuit is to the effect that when a party

seeks to amend a complaint in a removed action to join a party

whose citizenship destroys complete diversity for the purpose of

diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332, then the Court has

discretion to refuse the amendment, or to permit the amendment

and have the action remanded to state court; further, in

exercising its discretion, a court should consider various

factors, including whether the person sought to be joined is a

person whose presence is needed for a just adjudication and would

be ordered under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19(a); whether if joinder

is denied, the action against the new defendant in state court

would be barred by the statute of limitations; whether there has

been unexplained delay in seeking joinder; the apparent strength

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 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

4

of the claim; any prejudice to the plaintiff; and whether it

appears that the plaintiff is seeking to join a party solely to

destroy diversity of citizenship. Lopez v. General Motors Corp.,

697 F.2d 1328, 1332 (9 Cir. 1983); Carnegie-Mellon University v. th

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1988); Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co.,

157 F.3d 686, 691 (9 Cir. 1998); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance th

Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1376-77 (9 Cir. 1980). th

Plaintiffs represent in the moving papers that Plaintiffs

have informed Defendants that Plaintiffs would seek to have the

case remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 if the

Court grants Plaintiffs’ present motion to amend their complaint;

further, the amendment of the complaint is in good faith and not

simply to negate diversity for jurisdictional purposes. (Decl. of

Peter N. Kapetan ¶ 4.)

Here, the amendment appears to be in good faith because it

proceeded from a recent discovery of information regarding the

potential identity of the defendant who sold the device alleged

to be defective and to have been negligently manufactured and

sold. There has been no undue delay, and it does not appear that

there is any prejudice to Defendants. The new defendant is simply

an alternative seller whose presence in the suit appears to be

helpful to a complete adjudication. A significant period of time

has passed since the date of injury. The Court finds that the

amendment was not for the purpose of destroying diversity

jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the

motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file

an amended complaint IS GRANTED, and Plaintiffs ARE DIRECTED TO

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 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

5

FILE the proposed first amended complaint no later than ten days

after the date of service of this order.

II. Findings and Recommendation to Remand Action to

 State Court

Pursuant to the Court’s grant of leave to amend, Plaintiffs

are filing a first amended complaint in which there is not

complete diversity for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In such

an instance, the appropriate action is to order the case remanded

to the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that the Court order this

action remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California,

County of Fresno.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within ten (10) court days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within five (5) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 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

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00980-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/26/07 Page 6 of 6