Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00452/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHERYL PERRYMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

LIFE TIME FITNESS, a Minnesota

Company, doing business in the State of

Arizona; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-0452-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On March 6, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, Defendant Life Time Fitness

removed this action from the Superior Court of the State of Arizona to this Court. (Dkt. #

3.) The removal was premised upon the diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and

Defendant Life Time Fitness and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00. Neither

party disputes the fact that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Arizona and Defendant Life

Time Fitness is a citizen of the State of Minnesota. The parties likewise do not dispute that

the amount in controversy is satisfied. 

On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that complete

diversity is lacking because potential defendants – managers employed by Life Time Fitness

– are likely Arizona residents. (Dkt. # 9 at 2.) At this time, however, the potential

defendants are unknown and are named only as Doe Defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a),

“[f]or purposes of removal . . . the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall

Case 2:09-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/24/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

be disregarded.” In assessing diversity of citizenship, the court “only consider[s] the

domicile of the named defendants.” Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690 (9th

Cir. 1998). Therefore, because Defendant Life Time Fitness was the only named defendant

at the time of removal, and because there is no dispute that diversity exists between Plaintiff

and Defendant Life Time Fitness, removal was proper.

A plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court from which it was

removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if there is a defect in the removal procedure.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The district court must remand the case if it appears before final

judgment that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff argues that because

diversity will be destroyed after she joins the additional potential defendants, the Court

should remand the action now. (See Dkt. # 9 at 2-3.) Because diversity jurisdiction currently

exists, however, the Court has no basis on which to remand the action. Should Plaintiff elect

to challenge the Court’s diversity jurisdiction at some point in the future, Plaintiff must first

file a motion to join the potential defendants that would destroy diversity. 

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). As the Ninth Circuit has noted, the

statute “is couched in permissive terms and it clearly gives the district court the discretion

to deny joinder.” Newcombe, 157 F.3d at 691. In exercising its discretion, the Court may

consider: 

(1)whether the would-be-defendants are necessary for just

adjudication of the controversy, (2) whether the plaintiff still

could bring an action in state court against the putative

defendants, (3) whether there has been any unexplained delay in

joinder, (4) whether it appears the plaintiff is seeking to destroy

jurisdiction, (5) the apparent merit of the claims against the new

parties, and (6) whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice

without the joinder of the defendants. 

Bonner v. Fuji Photo Film, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1119-20 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citations

omitted). Despite claiming that additional potential parties exist that would destroy the

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not filed a motion to join additional parties

Case 2:09-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/24/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

and the Court therefore is unable to consider whether joinder and remand are proper.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 9) is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Upon discovery of the identity of the additional

potential defendants, Plaintiff may file a motion to join those parties and seek remand, if

proper, at that time.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00452-GMS Document 10 Filed 03/24/09 Page 3 of 3