Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04964/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04964-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FedEx Ground
Defendant
Federal Express Corporation
Defendant
Fedex Corporation
Defendant
Fedex Express
Defendant
Fedex Freight
Defendant
Noel Sharpe
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL SHARPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-4964 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO AMEND AND REMAND;

AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Docket Nos. 27, 31, and 35)

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral

argument of counsel, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff Noel Sharpe’s motion to amend and

remand. The Court further DENIES Defendant Federal Express Corporation’s motion to strike the

declaration of Robert Cheasty (counsel for Ms. Sharpe). 

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2006, Ms. Sharpe filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court against

Defendants Federal Express Corporation, FedEx Express, FedEx Ground, FedEx Freight, and Does

1-100 (“FedEx”), seeking compensation for a personal injury that occurred at the Oakland airport. 

In her complaint, Ms. Sharpe alleges that, on March 17, 2004, she was the driver of a shuttle bus that

was parked at Oakland airport. See Compl. at 5. While she waited to pick up clients, her bus was

rear-ended by a FedEx employee. See id. According to Ms. Sharpe, at the time she filed her

complaint, she did not know the true name of the FedEx employee who rear-ended her bus. See id. 

On August 16, 2006, FedEx removed the case to federal court. In December 2006, the driver

of the FedEx truck that allegedly caused the accident was identified as Tom Kardasis. The deadline

Case 3:06-cv-04964-EMC Document 37 Filed 06/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to amend the complaint to include additional defendants was January 12, 2007. See Case

Management and Pretrial Order, 1:22. Ms. Sharpe did not file her motion to amend the complaint

and remand until May 11, 2007.

II. DISCUSSION

FedEx argues, as a preliminary matter, that the motion to amend and remand should be

denied as untimely because, under the Court’s case management order, Ms. Sharpe only had until

January 12, 2007, to name additional defendants to the case. Although the Court’s order did impose

this deadline, the Court implicitly altered the deadline by expressly permitting Ms. Sharpe to file a

motion to remand at the case management conference held on April 25, 2007. Moreover, FedEx

suffered no substantial prejudice as a result of the late filing of the motion. Accordingly, the Court

turns to the merits of the motion to amend and remand.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e), a court has discretion in determining whether to “deny joinder,

or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). The following

factors are considered in making this determination: (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 preclude an original action against the new defendants in

state court; (3) whether there has been an unexplained delay in requesting joinder; (4) whether

joinder is intended solely to defeat federal jurisdiction; (5) whether the claims against the new

defendant appear valid; and (6) whether denial of joinder will prejudice involved parties. See Lopez

v. General Motors Corp., 697 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1983).

Some of the factors favor remand. There is nothing to indicate that the joinder desired by

Ms. Sharpe is fraudulent. Furthermore, although Ms. Sharpe has delayed in requesting joinder, that

delay is explained by the fact that the motion was put off was because the parties agreed to mediate

the case first. In addition, the claim against Mr. Kardasis appears valid as he was the driver of the

FedEx truck that allegedly caused the accident. If the Court does not permit joinder here, then the

statute of limitations would likely bar an original action against Mr. Kardasis in state court.

On the other hand, the joinder of Mr. Kardasis is not needed for just adjudication, and the

denial of joinder will not prejudice Ms. Sharpe. At the hearing on the motion, FedEx stipulated to

Case 3:06-cv-04964-EMC Document 37 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

vicarious liability if Mr. Kardasis is found liable and effectively waived any defense based scope of

employment. See also Ans. at 5 (“admit[ting] that its employee operated the vehicle in conjunction

with his/her duties”). On the other hand, if the Court were to permit joinder and remand, FedEx

would be prejudiced by having to “restart” litigation in state court even though the litigation in this

Court is well under way and slated for trial in December of this year. These factors counsel

overwhelming against joinder and remand.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Ms. Sharpe’s motion to amend and remand. The

Court further denies FedEx’s motion to strike the declaration of Mr. Cheasty as moot. None of the

arguments made in the motion to strike are material to the disposition of the motion to amend and

remand. For the same reason, the Court denies FedEx’s request for leave to file an objection to a

letter that Mr. Cheasty sent to this Court.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 27 , 31, and 35.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04964-EMC Document 37 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 3